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 - Page 3

post #81 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Um-m-m-m, no. Macs do not ship with Intel Inside stickers. The Intel-based Macs look pretty much like the PPC-based Macs that they replaced. I expect no AMD stickers on AMD-based Macs. Macs with AMD processors will look pretty much like Macs with Intel processors.

He's talking about performance differentiation, not a stupid sticker.
post #82 of 394
Well hopefully there'll still be Intel/nVidia models. I prefer Intel CPUs and nVidia GPUs.

Memo to Intel: BUY nVidia, you dipsticks

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #83 of 394
AND has had Virtualization tech built into ther CPU for years. Pacifica
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 #84 of 394
I think AMD chips inside Macs would not see much a performance hit at all, its no longer about the raw speed of the chips anymore. Apple has quality engineers that can and will make a high valued product around any architecture they choose to go with from various vendors. I am glad to hear about this recent development from Apple, the more options afforded to Apple, the more flexibility they will have to deliver us the consumers top quality branded products with some of the best user experience around.

I for one welcome our new AMD Overlords.
post #85 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheslikeheroin View Post

Will an AMD iMac/Macbook be able to run programs like Parallels or Bootcamp.

Absolutely.

An AMD CPU is 100% x86 compatible. Keep in mind that AMD was also the developer of x86-64, the 64-bit computing implementation used in all Intel Macintosh systems with a Core 2 Duo or newer CPU. AMD CPUs also support the hardware virtualization techniques that Parallels depends upon.
post #86 of 394
I always thought Apple would eventually migrate to Intel, if only because that's their main business and they focus and pour R&D into it and are rewarded with volume chip sales. We enjoyed PPC while it was great and differentiated. Apple made the wise decision to jump ship and we all freaked out and then rejoiced with our faster, cooler intel hardware.

So really, I don't care as long as it's fast, innovative and energy efficient. If I were Apple, I'd be dabbling and sticking my nose in everything too. Apple was made aware of Intel's plans and changed course for the better. They can do it again. I don't think AMD has the roadmap to sway Apple on their main hardware, but they might learn a thing or two in regards to the iPad and other mobile ventures.

It never hurts to have plan B. And it's fun to be a spy. Let AMD and others court Apple with their best ideas.
post #87 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

No. AMD is the same ISA (X86) . Building in support would be a piece of cake by comparison.

The ISA is actually AMD64. AMD invented it. Intel realized they had to give up on Itanium-only, and they adopted it as EM64T under the cross-licensing agreement that exists between AMD and Intel.
post #88 of 394
With 40 billion in the bank, with apple move on ipad to go for apple4 chip i wouldnt be surprise to see apple buying amd .
post #89 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazimzadeh View Post

With OpenCL in Snow Leopard Apple could switch to AMD and not lose any processing performance, right? Wouldn't apps be able to take advantage of better, ATI, graphics to make up for slightly weaker processor speed?

Now we just need some apps to start utilizing OpenCL.
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 #90 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

And what were your thoughts after Apple announced that they were going with Intel processors?

Seriously, I don't see much wrong with this decision. Throw AMD chips in the plastic MacBook, Apple TV, and Mac Mini. Leave the Intel chips in the iMac and MacBook Pro lines. It's a tossup in the Mac Pro sector IMHO.

That being said, guys, it's just a chip. Apple knows what they're doing better than you do so chill.

I think that's basically right, but I'd refine it just a bit. The new 13" MacBook Pro is a very interesting indicator. Apple clearly did not want to deal with Intel's integrated graphics in that model, nor did they want to include a discrete GPU. They were willing to compromise on CPU speed (sticking with the old C2D) in order to get the better integrated graphics from NV. But of course, that plan isn't going to work much longer, because eventually C2D will be retired and then Intel integrated graphics will be the only option. So my best guess for where AMD will show up is in the 13" MacBook Pro and MacBook, where AMD might be able to provide a mediocre x86 chip combined with a very solid GPU. And really, that's the right balance for those products.

Regarding the Mac Pro, it's hard for me to see Apple switching from Xeon to Opteron for those systems. Xeon is so far ahead of Opteron, particularly for the types of workloads that are most common on Mac Pros. I just can't see the logic of going with AMD there.
post #91 of 394
Lemme rephrase this, if apple buy AMD... Just imagine Steve Jobs leading AMD team, to once again push up industry standards.
post #92 of 394
Whatever the reason, it is good for Apple to explore its options and use one CPU vendor company to negotiate against the other. It is a plus that AMD now owns ATI graphics. Perhaps Apple wants a custom optimized CPU/GPU chip that Intel is unwilling to produce?

Competition between chipmakers is a good thing.
post #93 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post


I for one welcome our new AMD Overlords.




I think AMD would be the perfect solution for the price sensitive Mac user. AMD is sampling their integrated (CPU/GPU ondie) Fusion technology right now and by the time Apple would deliver AMD based machines we'd be looking at likely second generation Fusion stuff.

AMD would also be tough on the high end. I wouldn't sneeze at an Opteron based Mac Pro.
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 #94 of 394
Quote:
Actually, isn't "advanced" an adjective which modifies the noun "discussions?"

Well, I suppose it could be, but it seems more likely to me that the intent was to modify "discussions" in a manner suggesting that the discussions were preceding something significant (e.g. using AMD processors).

If the intent was, in fact, to use "advanced," then it would suggest that the discussions have been going on for quite some time. Perhaps I should not have been so quick to judge. I am curious, though, because it makes a significant difference with regard to what this story really means.
post #95 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

AMD's entire market cap is $6.5B. Apple could buy them lock, stock, and barrel with cash on hand. Then they'd have fabs for their A5/6/7/8 chip line and a competitive core if they wanted to play carrot and stick with Intel. They'd get former AMD engineers to enhance the iPad/iPhone chip series' GPU options.

Might be interesting. And it seems at least as likely as Apple going to AMD despite not even using Intel's latest chip offerings when they come out. What's the point of changing suppliers if you're not even taking full advantage of your current one?

Not that I wish to disagree with your comments that Apple could buy AMD, I do want to point out that AMD would no longer come with any fabs. They spun off their manufacturing in the form of Global Foundries a couple of years ago. Whilst Global Foundries still make all of AMD's devices, AMD are no longer in the manufacturing game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamw View Post

Whatever the reason, it is good for Apple to explore its options and use one CPU vendor company to negotiate against the other. It is a plus that AMD now owns ATI graphics. Perhaps Apple wants a custom optimized CPU/GPU chip that Intel is unwilling to produce?

Competition between chipmakers is a good thing.

I think you're probably right here - competition is a good thing. I think most of us are reading way too much into this article. Apple make computers. AMD make processors. It would seem kind of strange if they weren't looking at them.
post #96 of 394
I think it is Intel locking out Nvidia chipsets that is forcing Apple to look at AMD for chips. Of course Intel has the better cpus, but their integrated graphics are awful. Even worse for Apple, besides just being poor performers, Intel has absolutely atrocious support for OpenGL (nevermind OpenCL). I'm sure Apple wants to continue to move forward with OpenGL 3.3 and even 4.0. Getting drivers from Intel that support the more recent OpenGL specs just isn't going to happen.

Now none of this mattered when Apple was able to use the Nvidia chipset and integrated GPU. Now with Intel locking out other chipsets makers, Apple would be stuck with the awful Intel GPUs. I think Apple is not excited about having a large portion of the new machines it makes being stuck back on OpenGL 2.1 for years to come.
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
post #97 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Why do you call AMD machines 'junk'? Can you be more specific? E.g., do they fail more often? Do they perform less well than advertised?

As of now, you're not providing any data, just making assertions.
post #98 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that they aren't exactly the same, as they use different technologies in a number of areas. Developers often code for one chip or the other. In fact, almost all code for Intel, making AMD performance inferior in a number of areas. The only place where that's not true is HPC, and Apple doesn't compete there, unless, very unlikely as it may be, Apple is considering it now.

Well, what do you mean by "developers coding for Intel", they are both use the same ISA, and compilers would generate the binary machine code for run time. Do you mean that these "developers" actually code in x86 assembly?

Quote:
AMD has no leading technologies anymore, and a poor record of presenting product on time.

I assume you mean process technology, as that would be the standard terminology in ECE. Well, AMD has always been 9-12 months behind in transitionning to smaller nodes at their fabs (when they still owned them). So I'm not sure what do you mean by "anymore".

[quote]Just look at their problems in the past two years Now, without their own fab, they will have even more problems with optimization.[/quote[

So what are you suggesting, that design houses such as ARM and Nvidia all output sub-standard products? What are your justifications for such?

Quote:
Unfortunately, I have to leave for the day, so I won't be back 'till late. Too bad, this is the most important discussion here in years, if true.

Well, I have been around looking around in this forum for a long time. But this is the first time that I feel compelled to post in a thread, since it is an interesting topic, and this specific post's assertions seems to warrant some definite answers.

I am a computer engineer, and I have studied computer microarchitectures for a long time. I actually post regularly on arstechnica and anandtech on these issues. I assume that, since you are able to make these claims, that you are a computer engineer/scientist as well, and that you will have good answers to these.

Looking forward to you getting back, and your reply.
post #99 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by lssmit02 View Post

Actually, isn't "advanced" an adjective which modifies the noun "discussions?"

Yes. You are right. It refers to the fact that the discussions are at an 'advanced stage.'
post #100 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

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...

The iMac uses desktop CPUs now so your 90% figure is out-of-date.

There are a lot of reasons why AMD might be visiting Apple and supplying MacBook CPUs needn't be one of them.

Personally I'm hoping Apple soon stops using the Core 2 Duo in the iMac and goes with Clarkdale Core i5 (2 cores, 4 threads, desktop CPU) in their low end models while retaining the Lynnfield Core i7 (4 cores, 8 threads, desktop CPU) in the high end models. I'm also looking for 5xxx series Radeon graphics.
post #101 of 394
Melgross doesn't have respect for people running AMD? Who cares what he thinks?

This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.

Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.

*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.

So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.

Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.

I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...

I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #102 of 394
Quote:
Personally I'm hoping Apple soon stops using the Core 2 Duo in the iMac and goes with Clarkdale Core i5 (2 cores, 4 threads, desktop CPU) in their low end models while retaining the Lynnfield Core i7 (4 cores, 8 threads, desktop CPU) in the high end models. I'm also looking for 5xxx series Radeon graphics.

Me too. Let's hold our breath and see if it happens?

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #103 of 394
Yes Apple likes to charge a premium and so does Intel which means complaints about Apple pricing will continue to exist because neither Apple nor Intel are going to give their product away for nothing.

AMD is your best bet for lower end Mac mini, Macbook hardware that performs acceptably.
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 #104 of 394
Quote:
I think AMD would be the perfect solution for the price sensitive Mac user.

Don't see it happening.

They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?

They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.

After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.

Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'

The AMD 'talks' are interesting at the least.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #105 of 394
Quote:
Apple pricing will continue to exist because neither Apple nor Intel are going to give their product away for nothing.

When did they ever?

Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.

It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.

Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #106 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Don't see it happening.

They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?

They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.

After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.

Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'

The AMD 'talks' are interesting at the least.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Until recently Apple was using Mobile Intel processors in the iMac and those never really get dirt cheap. BTO makes sense for those high end configs. The 27" iMacs offer something no other vendor can offer right now and that's a higher than HD native resolution. The screen alone is worth over a $1000. Integrated graphics aren't an Apple phenomenon it's an industry wide trend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

When did they ever?

Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.

It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.

Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I feel the same about expensive products in all categories. I wish they were cheaper but by and large after using most of them i realize why the extra money was requested. Expensive products should go the extra mile and Apple does indeed go the extra mile which is why their customer satisfaction is top of the charts.
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 #107 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Melgross doesn't have respect for people running AMD? Who cares what he thinks?

This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.

Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.

*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.

So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.

Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.

I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...

I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.

Lemon Bon Bon.

That's a dumb argument. If your argument were correct, Apple would have done it years ago. Why wait so long?
post #108 of 394
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.

If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.

My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".

The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
post #109 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

When did they ever?

Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.

It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.

Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Go buy something else then, if you think you're not getting your money's worth. Stop the whining.
post #110 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.

This has not been consistent with Apple past dealings with suppliers. They never put their eggs in one basket, and constantly pit suppliers against each other to get the best deals.
post #111 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.

If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.

My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".

The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.

+1

Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
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 #112 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

When did they ever?

Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.

It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.

Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.

Lemon Bon Bon.

In case you haven't realized it, MBP prices have dropped from January 2009 to the current models. Also you are getting more for the same price that you were getting just last week. I bought my MBP last year and the price is less than when I got it, even with a education discount--go figure

If you are not happy with Apple prices you can either get a refurb or go to a used PC
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #113 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.

If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.

My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".

The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.

I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

+1

Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)

A Sandy Bridge core will be significantly better than a Llano core, but the Sandy Bridge GPU looks to be far behind the Llano GPU (if the rumors are true). CPU-wise, Sandy Bridge will easily beat Llano with equivalent core counts. But what about a TDP and price area where 2-core Sandy Bridge competes with 4-core Llano? There will be a similar one in the 25/35 W space where 25/35 W 4-core Champlain goes against 35 W 2-core Arrandale. Coincidentally, that space is right where the MacBook Pro is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
post #114 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

+1

Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)

The other point I wanted to make was that this is probably a *good* sign for Open CL.

There hasn't been much talk and precious little in the the way of apps that utilize this technology. It seems like Apple are serious about OCL and are going to reject cpu/gpu combos that do not support this. Intel on the other hand seem to be more interested in a world where computing is done mostly on the cpu. They only seem to produce gpus that are 'good enough' for watching video and little else. GPGPU looks like something that is anathema to their future.
post #115 of 394
People seem to be assuming that the AMD chips would be going into the iMacs. Why? The AppleTV and Mini seem like much more likely spots to place AMD/ATI in the near future. The lower CPU performance wouldn't be an issue and the better graphics would be especially helpful with the AppleTV (where CPU really isn't an issue). They would be able to cut prices while keeping their high margins.

If the relationship worked out well and Bulldozer brings AMD back into a competitive position then they can expand the relationship. Otherwise, they at least improve the bargaining position they have with Intel.
post #116 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician View Post

I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).

I read your post. Nice.

I think, like you allude, that AMD in Macs will go were Apple rely on integrated graphics. MacBooks, MBP (13"), MBAs, and minis.

Where Apple use dedicated graphics, Intel seem to make more sense.
post #117 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible.

Apple never chooses 100% CPUs, with the possible exception of Mac Pros. Otherwise, CPU performance always takes a back seat to other factors.
post #118 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post


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.


Why? Those folks also dislike Wintel.
post #119 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


Apple might be moving away from the Premium pricing model and heading down the iPad road . . .

I would expect that will be the case. Their new lines, the iPod, iPhone and iPad are MUCH more successful than their old computer lines. They are now a huge company, and they have three categories in which they are market leaders instead of also-rans.

A change in basic architecture and a change in focus seem aligned.
post #120 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


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


Every computer I have ever built used an AMD chip. My old Laptop used an AMD chip.

They are MUCH better than Intel, dollar for dollar, or at least, they were at the time.
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