or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips - Page 2

post #41 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Apple currently offers a specific level of Server tier. When they expand that area it is only reasonable that they will have offerings of both.

Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.

If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.

These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.

IF, and that is a big if, Apple ever moves to four socket, or higher, servers, it might be worth considering. But Apple has shown no inclination to do so.

By the time they do (if they ever do), it may not matter. Intel is moving to a better memory model. I think the issue will disappear about the time Apple might be ready.
post #42 of 160
This is possible, since they already had mixed suppliers when they were dealing with the PowerPC. The only thing is that Apple will only do this if it is in their interest. Currently AMD doesn't seem to have anything that fills the more performance per watt category, but the day the do that and give Intel the run for their money, then you may just well see Apple knocking on the door, as long as it doesn't screw their relationship with Intel.
post #43 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.

And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #44 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk

They may or may not use AMD chips, but the did not "adapt" OS X to Intel. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the port was to PowerPC, not Intel. NeXT already ran on Intel, and when they developed OS X, they developed it for both Intel and PowerPC, but they HID the Intel side.

Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.

The port was several ways.

First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.
post #45 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franck

According to what ? I thought it was IBM. \

It could be IBM, if the game chips will count, once they get the numbers.
post #46 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...

So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?

It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.

Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.

just because they take the same stance in buisness as apple doesnt mean we have to like them O.o
post #47 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...

So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?

It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.

Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.

AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.

The shoe is now on the other foot, so to speak. Now it's AMD that has to prove themselves.

The only advantage they have right now is in four to eight socket systems.

That's why it's strange that Dell would choose this time to move over to such a great extent.

Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?
post #48 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.

AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.

But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #49 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?

As I've stated before, show me a well-intentioned startup and I'll show you a potential "evil empire". It's the nature of the game when big money is on the line.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #50 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.
post #51 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.

Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it?

Though I admit that it's going to take more than a heartbeat for AMD to catch up. Just as it's taken Apple a long time to come back from near-death.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #52 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it?

How so?
post #53 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarnate326

Oh, please no. iMac with AMD = nascarnate with x86 Intel PC.

Insead of upgrading chips every 2 months, why dont they update the machine its self. I want the G4 style iMac back! Death to the chin!

That's not an update, it's a downgrade and also means a price hike instead of reduction.

It's just like with people.
Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #54 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.

But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.

AMD's problems were that they would design a truly good high end chip, only to have massive production problems.

When that leading edge chip came out, AMD would have to discount it to sell to the low end, as Intel had surpassed it a while back.

AMD was relegated to being a second tier supplier because of that.

So, yes, their low end chips were somewhat better, but that wasn't the plan.
post #55 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by gar

It's just like with people.
Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.

I had a French teacher in high school who looked like that.
post #56 of 160
I hope Apple does consider it. More competition between these two chip makers is always good for the consumer. They force each other to lower prices, and try to make the next best chip. Competition=Good
post #57 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

The port was several ways.

First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Reply
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Reply
post #58 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

..."Everybody wants choice,'' he said, adding that rival Intel Corp's practices have stifled the PC industry's growth. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"

"Choice" & "Knowing Apple" in the same paragraph - hmmm

Hector doesn't realise that Apple products work specifically because of lack of 'choice' in their end-to-end solutions and that others fail because they sell on the perception of 'choice' and in doing so fail to produce a cohesive, workable solution (or obsess so much with the techology they never saw one to aim for in the first place).

I don't think he "Knows" Apple very well at all but we'll see.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #59 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.

Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions )

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #60 of 160
amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.
post #61 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.


IBM wouldn't move with Apple, so IBM got the boot.

It wasn't possible to get a fast PPC into a laptop formfactor, so Apple decided to get a whole new supplier.

When migrating to a new instruction set, you must move ALL your products so that way developers can develop for 1 OS build.

AMD may fit in eventually, but AMD does not use chips that Apple wants right now.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #62 of 160
EDIT: This is in response to the article not previous posts.

Not fracking bloody likely. Core/2 is spanking AMD's ass a nice shiny bright red. Frack off. Sorry, AMD, I loved ya, but you got the whole of 2007 to strike back in 2008 with some serious 45nm 8+ core stuff. AMD is going to lose a bunch of market share in 2007 because of Core/2, and PentiumD's out the bargain basement door.
post #63 of 160
Oh, and Paul Otellini is so in Steve's pocket -- Paul's virtually giving Intel chips away to Apple. Paul's like, here, take it man, take it alll..... Frack those Euro bastards* AMD..!!!

*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI
post #64 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI

I was pretty sure AMD started in the US. They do have fab(s) in Germany though.
post #65 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.



I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.

But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.

So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 160
The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.
post #67 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vokbain

The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
post #68 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

Some people don't read before they buy.

It's funny, people spend a few grand on a car and read everything about it before hand. For computers, it's almost an impulse buy by comparison.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #69 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

Yeah, AMD64 Athlons and FX's and Semprons have all been good value if they're on decent motherboards like Asus, which I swear by... As far back as the Pentium 4 was introduced until recently, it was a well-known secret that AMD was a much, much better choice for Desktops compared to the rubbish that is/was Pentium 4.

In the mobile space though the Pentium M has been a solid choice for a few years now, and now going into Centrino Duo, AMD has not come up with really competitive options.
post #70 of 160
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
post #71 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.

Yes, I know that Apple did that. I didn't spec the entity, I just gave the history of the ports in sequence for the official versions.
post #72 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions )

McD

Heh. What we don't know, we don't, well, you know.
post #73 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.

Not impressive.

FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.

4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.

The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.

When Intel moves to that: Game over.
post #74 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.

But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.

So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!


It's always good to have a competitor nipping at your heels. Ask MS.

I would never want to do away with AMD. In fact, if they could somehow come out with new designs that beat the pants off Intel, more power to them. I just don't see it happening from current roadmaps.
post #75 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

AMD had some pretty bad chips out there for years. They weren't shunned simply Intel didn't want anyone using them.
post #76 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.

Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable.

So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.

I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers.

That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.
post #77 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Not impressive.

FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.

4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.

The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.

When Intel moves to that: Game over.

is it not bad that one company innovates like

Dual Core machines
Integrated memory controlloer
Power/heat oriented concepts

and then the other company follows (steals?) and take the credit becoz then can beat this guy with price and marketing????

i feel for AMD

CPU (PC) world will be better with AMD and INTEL fighting for each quarter (n penny) for sales ...

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #78 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.



Agreed! I'm SERIOUSLY looking into a DIY using either the 6600 Conroe, or a Xeon for HD x264/VC-1/DivX encoding. However MB's for the Xeon are rather expensive, plus the added cost of an additional CPU, but benchmarks I've seen show encoding times (for 4 cores) cut in half versus a 2 core setup. Sweet!

That 6600 is priced very nicely, ~$240 for a kickass Asus MB, and has WAY OC potential! Somewhere in the $1,200 price range would provide the most bang for the buck!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 160
Here's another of my famous links:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518

By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing.

They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.
post #80 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518
By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing

0. Overall, it's very consistent with AnandTech and TomsHardware. Also, good that it's not like AT and TH which love to do their 20-page articles.

1. Keep in mind overclocking headroom which AT and TH and some others have shown to be higher in the Conroe lineage, as opposed to the FX lineage. When overclocked heavily though, the Conroe's power consumption goes up accordingly and sucks juice like the overclocked FX albeit slightly less.

2. A warning to note is that the FPS differences are very high because it pushes towards CPU-limited scenarios. AMD fanboys have shown less differences in more "mainstream" GPU scenarios.


Quote:
They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.

PPFT. English schoolboys are brats, plain and simple. And they don't grow up until their 40+. I'm just biased about the Brits. But I need to make a journey to the MotherLand one day. God save da Queen yo.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips