or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › AMD failed to provide 'Llano' chip for Apple's MacBook Air because of faulty parts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD failed to provide 'Llano' chip for Apple's MacBook Air because of faulty parts

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
Former AMD employees revealed that Apple gave its "Llano" chip a "close look" for a new MacBook Air model last year, but ultimately decided not to go with the processor because too many of its parts were faulty, according to a new report.

AMD has been through several reinventions in recent years in a quest to find a niche to call its own. The company was an early competitor to chip giant Intel, but it has struggled to keep up pace with its rival as of late.

Brian Caulfield reports for Forbes that new "fusion" processors from AMD had a shot at upstaging Intel by making their way into Apple's popular MacBook Air notebook for last year's refresh. People familiar with the matter indicated that Apple had given the "Llano" processor, which combined the CPU and GPU into one part, serious consideration for use in its thin-and-light portable.

However, a former employee indicated that AMD was unable to get early working samples of the chip to Apple on time, though tipsters disagreed on exactly how close the company was to delivering the chip, with one claiming that AMD "had it." According to the report, too many of the parts ended up being faulty and AMD lost the deal.

Sources also said AMD had proposed a low-power processor named "Brazos" for a revamp of the Apple TV box, but Apple declined to go with the option. "Brazos" went on to make inroads in the netbook industry and reportedly kept the company afloat.

"If Brazos had been killed, AMD wouldn’t be in business," one former employee said.

A separate report from late last year also claimed that Apple had considered the AMD "Llano" option "plan A" for its MacBook Air, but AMD was said to have "dropped the ball" at the last minute.




Apple released the Thunderbolt MacBook Air last July with Intel's Sandy Bridge processors powering the notebooks. The machines became an instant success and reportedly jumped to 28 percent of the company's notebook shipments just months after they were released.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 57
Gotta get that manufacturing process down AMD.
post #3 of 57
I doubt AMD would even be able to ramp up to build enough chips for Apple.
post #4 of 57
Probably for the best. Even with OpenCL, with I/O taken care of with SSDs, the biggest contributor to user performance experience for most tasks is CPU speed and Llano can't compare to Sandy Bridge on the CPU side. And the HD 3000 is doing surprising well with even the latest AAA Mac games supporting it including RAGE, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Bioshock 2 so some GPU performance is left on the table compared to Llano, but game/driver compatibility problems seem to have been solved. Llano couldn't match LV Sandy Bridge's 17W TDP either. For a "Plan B", the Sandy Bridge MacBook Air turned out surprisingly well.
post #5 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post

I doubt AMD would even be able to ramp up to build enough chips for Apple.

Apple is twice burned, thrice shy with CPU manufacturers. First Motorola, then IBM failed to ramp up PowerPC clock speeds and also failed to fix hardware bugs in their chips. AMD probably would have made all kinds of excuses for low yields, poor reliability, etc. Apple doesn't need to hear that all over again.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #6 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Apple is twice burned, thrice shy with CPU manufacturers. First Motorola, then IBM failed to ramp up PowerPC clock speeds and also failed to fix hardware bugs in their chips. AMD probably would have made all kinds of excuses for low yields, poor reliability, etc. Apple doesn't need to hear that all over again.

While Apple will gamble on entering new markets or using the latest technology, they won't gamble on other company's promises to do it right once we get your contract. Too bad, but 99.9% of the needed parts still means zero final product out the door.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #7 of 57
On these very boards many of us where chatting up AMD last year about the time Llano was heading into production.

I guess the rumors then were true that at least AMD was being given a shot and they failed. Too bad because Llano is a solid chip and would have made a nice MBA processor/GPU platform.
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 #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

On these very boards many of us where chatting up AMD last year about the time Llano was heading into production.

I guess the rumors then were true that at least AMD was being given a shot and they failed. Too bad because Llano is a solid chip and would have made a nice MBA processor/GPU platform.

I think it was wizard69 that was particularly keen on Llano.

I do wonder how serious Apple was. I mean, we know Jobs pitted two teams against each other for the development of the iPhone OS. One using the iPod Linux and the other using Mac OS X as starting points. And we've heard from Verizon that Apple came to them first. To me it sounds like Apple is just doing its due diligence in testing the waters and increasing competition more than anything else. Meaning, I don't think iPod linux or Verizon or AMD were ever the top contender for these projects.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #9 of 57
Well, that's what AMD gets for spinning off their Fab arm a few years back just to save a buck. This is what, the third chip in a row they've had these sorts of issues with? Easier to keep quality control in check when your product is manufactured under your own roof.
post #10 of 57
This is where having an Operations guy, like Tim Cook, at the helm makes a huge difference. Better component features are of little use if you don't have a reliable supply. Intel's CPU manufacturing capabilities are un-matched in the industry. AMD may have some good (and in some cases better) designs, but if they can't reliably produce them, in volume, companies will stick with Intel...
post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I do wonder how serious Apple was. I mean, we know Jobs pitted two teams against each other for the development of the iPhone OS.

I believe the article said Llano was "plan A".
That's how serious Apple was. AMD had their shot.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #12 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I believe the article said Llano was "plan A".
That's how serious Apple was. AMD had their shot.

But does that really mean anything? Unless we get official word from a top Apple exec I can't help but consider that if AMD was Plan A that Intel could have subsequently been called Plan 1.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think it was wizard69 that was particularly keen on Llano.

AMD did finally stabilize Llano but if you look at the arrival dates of Llano based hardware it is pretty obvious that it wasn't ready for Apples schedule. Now though Llano is seen as a respectable and low power competitor to Intels hardware.
Quote:
I do wonder how serious Apple was. I mean, we know Jobs pitted two teams against each other for the development of the iPhone OS.

I believe they where very serious. Llano simply is a better platform to support the development direction of Mac OS. It is no accident that Mac OS 10.8 will struggle on Intel integrated GPU and that is if it is allowed to run there at all. Apple is rapidly expanding the use of the GPU in future version of the OS.
Quote:
One using the iPod Linux and the other using Mac OS X as starting points. And we've heard from Verizon that Apple came to them first. To me it sounds like Apple is just doing its due diligence in testing the waters and increasing competition more than anything else.

I don't see it like that. Rather I see AMDs approach as an almost ideal fit for the direction Mac OS is going. Right now it is impossible to offer up Intel based systems with Intel integrated graphics as a wise purchase decision. Frankly I believe that Llano would hold up better on future Mac OS revs than any Intel solution to date.

The reason is pretty clear, the far better GPU isn't going to crap out on OpenCL, 3D and other features the way Intel GPUs will. While support isn't written in stone yet one can see that today's Intel hardware isnt going to effectively support The expanded support for 3D and AgPU compute that is coming.
Quote:
Meaning, I don't think iPod linux or Verizon or AMD were ever the top contender for these projects.

I don't buy that either. I don't really believe that Apple is happy that they are literally pulling Intel into the future kicking and screaming. Apple has pretty much demanded OpenCL and better all around GPU support from Intel. For good reason too as NVidias 9400m really provided a benchmark for what a low cost system could do.

Of course we won't likely know for some time what actually happened nor Apples mindset with Intel. What is obvious though is that Intels future and Apples just don't seem to be aligned.
post #14 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple has pretty much demanded OpenCL and better all around GPU support from Intel. For good reason too as NVidias 9400m really provided a benchmark for what a low cost system could do. d.

Could Imagination Tech GPUs be used for their low-power Mac line?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Probably for the best. Even with OpenCL, with I/O taken care of with SSDs, the biggest contributor to user performance experience for most tasks is CPU speed and Llano can't compare to Sandy Bridge on the CPU side.

Compare raw CPU wise with top of the line Intel hardware no! AIR isn't top of the line Intel hardware by any measure so the arguement doesn't hold up. What people are finding though is that Llano is holding up very well in notebooks and is effectively a better choice for most users. Llano can maintain very good performance against the various Intel offering while using less power. It might not beat Intel in raw CPU performance but it will often last longer on battery executing the same workloads.

I'm not saying Llano is perfect by any measure just that it is a huge mistake to look at CPU performance as the overriding consideration in something like the AIR.
Quote:
And the HD 3000 is doing surprising well

Well that isn't true!
Quote:
with even the latest AAA Mac games supporting it including RAGE, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Bioshock 2 so some GPU performance is left on the table compared to Llano, but game/driver compatibility problems seem to have been solved. Llano couldn't match LV Sandy Bridge's 17W TDP either. For a "Plan B", the Sandy Bridge MacBook Air turned out surprisingly well.

Intel and AMD don't spec power demands in the same way. It is really hard to say if the AMD chiP would have worked well in AIR. If you look to the more objective web sites on the net you will find that Llano is often doing very well in laptops power usage wise. Especially and activities involving the GPU. When you look at system performance in a balanced way Llano is proving to be a very good laptop chip.
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Could Imagination Tech GPUs be used for their low-power Mac line?

You do know that Atom is now using Imagination tech in the latest ATOM release. I haven't seen real benchmarks that stress the new ATOMs GPU so I really can't say how well it is performing in these chips. However Intel is clocking the GPU core at a very high clock rate for Imagination logic. Much faster in fact than current Apple usage. This is actually interesting in that it may indicate how Apple will address the retina display via the A5X. If that chip is real we might see a doubling of the GPUs clock rate.

Of course I suspect you are talking about a line of Macs that would be significantly faster than what the ATOM can manage. In that regard your question is much harder to answer. I believe that Imagination could give AMD a run for its money at the low end. Until competitive hardware is out though I would tend to side with AMD as they have done wonders with low power GPUs (that maintain performance) in the last couple of years.

Interestingly it looks like AMD has an ARM initiative going. That is a SoC built around ARM CPU cores and AMD GPUs and support logic. If real and if it makes it to market that will be a very interesting development in the ARM world. It would be also a good way to see how AMD stacks up against Imagination GPU wise.
post #17 of 57
wizard69,

i have an i7 macbook air.
if it came with an AMD chip, what would be the differences, especially cpu vs cpu, GPU vs GPU? what about battery?

would it also be possible that in order for apple to better differentiate the airs, we could've seen a 8gb ram air?

regards.
post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Intel and AMD don't spec power demands in the same way. It is really hard to say if the AMD chiP would have worked well in AIR. If you look to the more objective web sites on the net you will find that Llano is often doing very well in laptops power usage wise. Especially and activities involving the GPU. When you look at system performance in a balanced way Llano is proving to be a very good laptop chip.

Looking at anandtech's review of the original llano high end APU, it power consumption In mins per whr, it beats most sandy bridge laptops at a Less mature 32-nm process.

Now, with apple doing better drivers for battery than windows etc, etc it would probably get best for its tpd.

What is really impressive is how fast the 18-watt APU counting its low power consumption... Beat 32nm mature tech on 40nm node.

I imagine you would get drastically better battery life; already is 20-80ish% better than ulv i7 and i3 with optimus. For slightly reduced CPU power, which can be countered by graphics acceleration makes up for it(?).

Now if trinity is what AMD says it will. Be--A8-3500 or greater performance at 17 watts (still quad core) that would great (if in MBA, sadly AMD timetable probably not with apples D

I did this all from iPhone, between 0230 and 0315, so I hope I go everything typed right etc.

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply
post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


i have an i7 macbook air.
if it came with an AMD chip, what would be the differences, especially cpu vs cpu, GPU vs GPU? what about battery?

would it also be possible that in order for apple to better differentiate the airs, we could've seen a 8gb ram air?

regards.



AMD's A8 series APU's generally are performance competitive with Core 2 Quads and Core i3s. The integrated GPU would be higher performance than the Intel HD3000 by a fair shot, but the bigger Macbook Pros also have discreet GPU's for high performance tasks. So with 17 watt parts coming out it might be competitive with your low voltage i7.







If Piledriver is good, maybe the Macbook Air will get it as it has no room for a dGPU, but the bigger macs will be staying with Intel in my guess. They will have the same thermal envelope (17W) with the advantage of a far more capable GPU.
post #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

AMD's A8 series APU's generally are performance competitive with Core 2 Quads and Core i3s. The integrated GPU would be higher performance than the Intel HD3000 by a fair shot, but the bigger Macbook Pros also have discreet GPU's for high performance tasks. So with 17 watt parts coming out it might be competitive with your low voltage i7.







If Piledriver is good, maybe the Macbook Air will get it as it has no room for a dGPU, but the bigger macs will be staying with Intel in my guess. They will have the same thermal envelope (17W) with the advantage of a far more capable GPU.

well.. is it me or it sounds as a nice choice (and vs intel)?
battery life would also be much higher right?

what are the disadvantages/problems?
post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

well.. is it me or it sounds as a nice choice (and vs intel)?
battery life would also be much higher right?

what are the disadvantages/problems?


Basically, how many working chips per day AMD can poop out. Intel has its own fabrication plants which are THE most advanced consumers can get right now, AMD is stuck with GlobalFoundaries for 32nm and yields aren't going well. Intel will be transitioning to 22nm soon too with Ivy Bridge, so they are at least a year ahead in process/die shrinks.

If GloFo gets its junk together they could have a fighting chance in the Air imo. Or if AMD switches to another manufacturer like TMSC, but switching is complicated. I'd love an Air with graphics as good as that graph shows with similar CPU performance as before, and it won't be the first time Apple goes sideways on CPU performance in favour of great graphics.
post #22 of 57
AMD had their chance. Sounds like they had problems AND missed Apple's schedule anyhow.

So the headline is academic.

They've got it all on to overturn Intel who have their OWN fabs. I didn't think it was a great idea to spin off/sell their own fabs. It appeared to help them hold their own in the K7/8(?) 'glory' years where they stuck it to the P4 etc.

Intel hasn't really given them any obvious 'open goals' as they did with the huge long pipeline 'netburst' (was it?) architecture.

Since the Core/Core2/i7 they've basically steamrolled and bitch slapped AMD around.

I used to have an 'Athlon' PC during the dark years as a PC user (no. It wasn't fun. I hated Windows with a passion.) It was ok. It ran hot. Noisy with the fans. I even had the box upgraded with another CPU/gpu. They offer good value chips that perform well for the money.

Even with 8 cores vs Intel's 4 they aren't really in it. With Piledriver they may pull even or get close. But Intel have Ivy bridge. 10-20% ahead, running cooler and Intel are beginning to improve the discreet graphics. About time, eh?

What's alarming is (or not) is that AMD have signalled that they're entering the mobile space as in ultra mobile. (What took them so long? They've been bleeding money in a 'losing' desktop war with Intel.) I guess it broadens AMD's portfolio to help them reach other income/revenue streams. We'll see how they square upto ARM/Intel and the rest. Certainly the GPUs around someone else's cpu cores might be interesting.

But I hope it doesn't signal a throwing in of the towel vs Intel on the desktop...with us left with a monopolist who feels no competitive pressure. That's not in customer's interests at all.

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 #23 of 57
The money isn't in the top 5% of processors anymore though, AMD finally realized this after years of getting stomped. They said they would focus on low power draw parts more now, which again tides well with a future Macbook Air, if they get their fabrication process in order. I think as complicated as it is they should switch to TMSC instead of GloFo, the former has working 28nm fabs, the latter still struggles with 32. The half cycle shrinks would also help not directly go head to head with Intel like they want too, ie they would be at 28, then after a while Intel would be at 22, so it would be a bit like Nintendo's strategy with launching an early half-cycle product with the Wii U. By not competing directly they can fill in the gaps better, as they obviously won't catch up in raw performance any time soon.
post #24 of 57
The problem being software and the OS's interaction with the hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

wizard69,

i have an i7 macbook air.
if it came with an AMD chip, what would be the differences, especially cpu vs cpu, GPU vs GPU? what about battery?

Intels CPU will perform better there is no doubt about that. However the difference isn't as significant as some think. The big win for AMD is the GPU and the features it supports. Battery wise the AMD chip does very well.
Quote:
would it also be possible that in order for apple to better differentiate the airs, we could've seen a 8gb ram air?

regards.

More RAM in an AIR is like more SSD storage. It is an issue of space and the next technology cycle.
post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It is no accident that Mac OS 10.8 will struggle on Intel integrated GPU and that is if it is allowed to run there at all.

Says who? How about some evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

well.. is it me or it sounds as a nice choice (and vs intel)?
battery life would also be much higher right?

what are the disadvantages/problems?

Battery life would be slightly better, but keep in mind that you still have to power the display and backlight, RAM, storage device, and so on. So even if AMD's chip had half the power consumption, the effect on battery life would be only somewhere in the 5-15% range.

The disadvantages would be:
- Lower CPU performance (and in spite of what the AMD fans will tell you, unless you're a heavy game player, the CPU is still used far more than the GPU).
- Availability - AMD would take time to ramp up
- Multiple suppliers. Apple's not going to switch all their products to AMD so they would have multiple suppliers which creates supply chain issues as well as reducing their leverage.
- Risk. Switching CPU suppliers entails risk which requires that the benefits be sufficient enough to justify the risk.

Frankly, unless Intel messes up or AMD comes up with an incredible breakthrough which catapults them to the front, I don't see Apple switching to AMD any time soon.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Well, that's what AMD gets for spinning off their Fab arm a few years back just to save a buck. This is what, the third chip in a row they've had these sorts of issues with? Easier to keep quality control in check when your product is manufactured under your own roof.

No one owns their own fabs anymore. Intel is one of the last to still own them. Using the phrase "just to save a buck" is a bit disingenuous since fabs are ridiculously expensive.
iPod touch 8 GB (2nd gen), iPod shuffle (2nd gen), iPod shuffle (4th gen)
Reply
iPod touch 8 GB (2nd gen), iPod shuffle (2nd gen), iPod shuffle (4th gen)
Reply
post #27 of 57
sucks because I'm tired of Intel. Go ARM! (Hurry)
post #28 of 57
However the balance of the reporting I'm seeing indicates that AMD does have a very good laptop processor in Llano. For many users it is a far better choice than anything Intel is selling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

Looking at anandtech's review of the original llano high end APU, it power consumption In mins per whr, it beats most sandy bridge laptops at a Less mature 32-nm process.

For certain workloads Llano provides a far superior performance profile.
Quote:
Now, with apple doing better drivers for battery than windows etc, etc it would probably get best for its tpd.

It isn't Apples style but it would be nice to provide users a choice.
Quote:
What is really impressive is how fast the 18-watt APU counting its low power consumption... Beat 32nm mature tech on 40nm node.

Many people mis the importance of the GPU in modern PC hardware. it will only become more significant in the future as Apple leverages the GPU more.
Quote:
I imagine you would get drastically better battery life; already is 20-80ish% better than ulv i7 and i3 with optimus. For slightly reduced CPU power, which can be countered by graphics acceleration makes up for it(?).

For the vast majority of users these days the GPU is more important than the CPU.
Quote:
Now if trinity is what AMD says it will. Be--A8-3500 or greater performance at 17 watts (still quad core) that would great (if in MBA, sadly AMD timetable probably not with apples D

I did this all from iPhone, between 0230 and 0315, so I hope I go everything typed right etc.

AMD only problem is that they lag Intel. This likely keep them out of the AIR as the chip simply wasn't ready for Apple. It is interesting though that rumors indicate that Intel has delayed some of their lower power Ivy Bridge processors. Maybe the shoe is on the other foot now.
post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Apple is twice burned, thrice shy with CPU manufacturers. First Motorola, then IBM failed to ramp up PowerPC clock speeds and also failed to fix hardware bugs in their chips. AMD probably would have made all kinds of excuses for low yields, poor reliability, etc. Apple doesn't need to hear that all over again.

Well, they're smarter now. Hence ARM, not Atom/Etc. Hence Intel still, until anyone can do better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Gotta get that manufacturing process down AMD.

It's really bizzare. In the case of AMD, was it TSMC or Global Foundries that messed up? Because TSMC has had a horrible time.

As for ATI/AMD, the graphics drivers issue has bugged them for almost a decade now. Either real or imagined.

In any case for the next 3 years it doesn't look like AMD can offer anything significant for Apple, not in the volume that they need, and with Intel Integrated Graphics finally not worthless, game over AMD, except for the budget PC space. The AMD CPUs of the past year also haven't really made a dent in the Intel juggernaut, as far as I can see.

ARM is the future. By 2016, I seriously would have a hard time thinking ARM would be used in anything less than 50% of all laptops and tablets.
post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Says who? How about some evidence?

It isn't like Apple is keeping secrets here. Future Mac OS releases will be accelerated via OpenCL and a stronger reliance upon other GPU features.
Quote:


Battery life would be slightly better, but keep in mind that you still have to power the display and backlight, RAM, storage device, and so on. So even if AMD's chip had half the power consumption, the effect on battery life would be only somewhere in the 5-15% range.

The differences in power draw between the current Intel and AMD solutions is rather shocking, at times 20 watts different.

Quote:
The disadvantages would be:
- Lower CPU performance (and in spite of what the AMD fans will tell you, unless you're a heavy game player, the CPU is still used far more than the GPU).

This simply isn't true anymore. Users are far mor likely to be using software. Or media that can leverage the GPU than at any time in the past. While there are certainly cases where the processor shortcomings will be noticeable it is no longer a main stream problem.
Quote:
- Availability - AMD would take time to ramp up

They have publicly admitted to problems executing and it does look like they have that issue licked. At this point there is a surplus of CPU production capacity so it isn't a problem now.
Quote:
- Multiple suppliers. Apple's not going to switch all their products to AMD so they would have multiple suppliers which creates supply chain issues as well as reducing their leverage.

Apple is actually getting to the point where they are straining their suppliers so like it or not they need alternatives. Intel isn't a problem in this regard yet but there is clearly other issues that seem to be harming the Apple/Intel relationship.
Quote:
- Risk. Switching CPU suppliers entails risk which requires that the benefits be sufficient enough to justify the risk.

True, but there is also risk in having to many eggs in one basket. In this regard I really don't think Apple and Intel are on the same wavelength. If you look at what Apple is doing with Mac OS you will see that AMD is a better fit, almost as if they have a common long term vision.
Quote:
Frankly, unless Intel messes up or AMD comes up with an incredible breakthrough which catapults them to the front, I don't see Apple switching to AMD any time soon.

The problem here is that you don't see Llano as the success it is. Yes it is late but it is also a very good notebook solution.
post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Many people mis the importance of the GPU in modern PC hardware. it will only become more significant in the future as Apple leverages the GPU more.

For the vast majority of users these days the GPU is more important than the CPU.

That's what we've been promised for about a decade now, and it really hasn't come to light. Intel HD graphics with Core i5 or better provides enough CPU and GPU power to do decent 2D apps in OS X for the next 3 years at least.

Not to mention the iPad's 2D composite engine on a ridiculously measly GPU bests what Flash could ever achieve (yes, because of how Flash is designed, but that's my point)... I've been waiting for something special to happen on my 9400M and now 320M, and the best I've got so far is that OpenCL "Galaxies" demo. Some of the effects in iPhoto that use the GPU actually might be slower than doing them in CPU on a fast Core i5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It is interesting though that rumors indicate that Intel has delayed some of their lower power Ivy Bridge processors. Maybe the shoe is on the other foot now.

It could be Intel continuing to make big money on Sandy Bridge, there's nothing that comes close in volume, performance, etc in the whole.

I feel that they're taking their time to get the most out of Ivy Bridge, and plan it perfectly to hit up the next cycle of CPU purchasing. Whatever problems their facing, they are still the kings of fabs for that level of chip complexity. They literally have no competitors in that space. Samsung, TSMC, Global Foundries... I don't see coming close in the next few years.

And I think Intel's escape valve is ARM... In several years when they see Intel desktop/laptop CPUs starting to go south fast, they'll probably become really good ARM fabricators at some pretty insane nodes (10nm or less?)
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

As for ATI/AMD, the graphics drivers issue has bugged them for almost a decade now. Either real or imagined.

because intel's drivers are great...?

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It isn't like Apple is keeping secrets here. Future Mac OS releases will be accelerated via OpenCL and a stronger reliance upon other GPU features.

Undoubtedly true. But your statement that I asked for evidence for was:
Quote:
It is no accident that Mac OS 10.8 will struggle on Intel integrated GPU and that is if it is allowed to run there at all.

So please provide evidence that 10.8 will struggle on an Intel integrated GPU and that it may not be allowed to run on an integrated Intel GPU at all. 10.8 is already in a lot of hands and there are no reports at all backing your assertion.

Bottom line is that your affection for AMD is causing you to make statements that are absolutely false - and you therefore have no credibility.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 57
How does Thunderbolt work without Intel CPU?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

How does Thunderbolt work without Intel CPU?

It doesn't. That's why I just don't buy any of these AMD rumors.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Undoubtedly true. But your statement that I asked for evidence for was:


So please provide evidence that 10.8 will struggle on an Intel integrated GPU and that it may not be allowed to run on an integrated Intel GPU at all. 10.8 is already in a lot of hands and there are no reports at all backing your assertion.

Apple has been fairly clear that what 10.8 will run on is in flux. However even if they get 10.8 to run on Intel integrated graphics you will not be getting all the acceleration that they are working into 10.8. This shouldn't surprise anybody because of the limited capability in these graphic systems.
Quote:
Bottom line is that your affection for AMD is causing you to make statements that are absolutely false - and you therefore have no credibility.

I would really appreciate it if you would retract that. AMD doesn't even come into the equation when it comes to Intel integrated graphics in 10.8. There is really little to discuss here as the old Intel GPUs don't support the features needed to leverage the chip. I'm not even sure why you are arguing the point.
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It doesn't. That's why I just don't buy any of these AMD rumors.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that it has to work on other hardware. Do you really think Apple would invest in TB if it didn't have a play for its embedded ARM chips?
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In fact I'd go so far as to say that it has to work on other hardware. Do you really think Apple would invest in TB if it didn't have a play for its embedded ARM chips?

I don't follow. TB is on Macs and Macs are Intel. So far every requirement for TB has to have an Intel chip in the mix.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Apple is twice burned, thrice shy with CPU manufacturers. First Motorola, then IBM failed to ramp up PowerPC clock speeds and also failed to fix hardware bugs in their chips. AMD probably would have made all kinds of excuses for low yields, poor reliability, etc. Apple doesn't need to hear that all over again.

switching from amd to intel is free (other then needed chipset drivers)
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

How does Thunderbolt work without Intel CPU?

How does Thunderbolt work with a pci-e video card? On a desktop?

Why are there no DATA only Thunderbolt cards? or Thunderbolt data cards that can take DP in?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › AMD failed to provide 'Llano' chip for Apple's MacBook Air because of faulty parts