hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.
Oh I agree. I have no aversion to AMD cpus in Macs per se. If they offer better performance I'm all for them.
The cpu is a component like the HDD. I want the best for my money. I don't care who makes it.
The cpu is a component like the HDD. I want the best for my money. I don't care who makes it.
Speaking of... I don't if anyone read my previous notes on it earlier in the week or if they were aware of the issue at all, but Apple was using Nvidia SATA II controllers.
The last release or two had some wonky issue that they only ran at 1.5Gbps (which limited SSD speeds). Apple eventually updated this with a drive update but they still had problems with 3rd-party drives.
Now they are back to using Intel SATA II controllers and all 3rd-party drive tests are working well. I'm now considering an Intel X-25 for my next Mac. Too bad Apple doesn't offer them on their store.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
I don't really see the argument for putting AMD chips in the Mac Pro either. Intel Xeons have had the lead in workstation applications over Opteron since returning to competition with Woodcrest. Where Opteron can still really push against Xeon is in servers where AMD's higher core counts can be better taken advantage of compared to Intel's higher IPC, higher clock speed processors, but I can't really see Apple designing a dedicated AMD platform just for XServes and not maintain commonality with the Mac Pro to benefit from economies of scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
If 16 Bulldozer cores > 8 Sandy Bridge cores then that may mean Bulldozer's the way to go. Magny-cours trades blows with Westmere and current speculation is that the K10 to Bulldozer performance increase will be larger than the Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge performance increase.
As for AMD's 2011 desktop products, they don't look quite as good to me as their server and Fusion products, so the iMac might stay with Intel in 2011.
I think the concept of what's a core will need to be reconsidered with Bulldozer if Hypertheading didn't already motivate this concern. In Bulldozer, each core that the OS sees is primarily just an integer based core with 2 ALUs, 2 AGUs, a L1 data cache, but not dedicated FPU, L2 cache or instruction decoders. Instead 2 of these integer cores are combined with a shared floating point core and wrapped with the instruction decode front-end and shared L2 cache. When AMD is talking about core counts with Bulldozer they are talking about integer cores and not the full module. In other words, top-end 16 core Bulldozer CPUs have 16 integer cores in 8 full processing modules. This should give AMD a large boost in integer performance which is something that the Core processors have traditionally had the advantage in. However Intel is really not in a true 2:1 core count disadvantage as the raw core count numbers seem to indicate.
I think Magny-Cours ability to keep up with Westmere is mainly in well-threaded server applications. I believe this to be the case in workstation applications like the Mac Pro.
Speaking of... I don't if anyone read my previous notes on it earlier in the week or if they were aware of the issue at all, but Apple was using Nvidia SATA II controllers.
The last release or two had some wonky issue that they only ran at 1.5Gbps (which limited SSD speeds). Apple eventually updated this with a drive update but they still had problems with 3rd-party drives.
Now they are back to using Intel SATA II controllers and all 3rd-party drive tests are working well. I'm now considering an Intel X-25 for my next Mac. Too bad Apple doesn't offer them on their store.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
Didn't notice that. Nice find.
Good to see that Apple are using the better SATA controllers. I'm pretty sure that my next Mac laptop will have a SSD.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
Really, 15" Unibody MacBook Pros can use 12mm HDDs? That's good to know. Personally, I'm disappointed that nobody has released larger 7200rpm 2.5" HDDs than 500GB. I think a 640GB 7200rpm HDD would be a good compromise between capacity, speed and cost compared to SSDs.
It doesn't sound like you're talking about notebook processors in any regard. Just having the fastest chip per dollar won't make AMD dominate in any realistic sense. Without being able to compete with Intel on power and efficiency we're going to continue to see Intel stale their notebook releases and keep their prices high.
AMD isn't just competing for performance but also power efficiency technology. I am sure you have heard of Cool'n Quiet, and now the turbo mode is a way to save power when processor/cores are at idle or when not all cores are stressed. The low power cpu sector gets even more interesting because we have more competition. I've read some good things about VIA and Nvidia becoming potent competition for both AMD and Intel in the portable cpu sector. The point is, whatever Intel delivers, AMD can also deliver but the future looks more brighter for AMD when looking ahead for next few years. I am sure Apple sees it, too.
What has to be stressed here also is that intel bullies the shit out of amd in all the vendors that offer intel products, and has thus marginalised them there. Intel lately seems less kin to offer preferential treatment to apple, and in turn apple sees intel placing them in a tight spot with the inferior igfx in the new cores, and they 've tried to find some belated workarounds that did cost them some face in the time it took them to bring the new macbook pros to the market.
AMD at the same time offers real promise based on a new architecture in their cpus that might or might not match intel, but it will definitely outperform them in the graphics area. And I think apple can help them in many domains to bring their vision to the market and establish themselves in what is arguably the best platform on the globe, OS X. They can help amd financially, they can assist with production issues. But at the same time apple will be getting a much needed exclusivity that intel is unwilling and incapable at offering. Who cares if in a year or two apple gets a cpu that's 10% worse off than intel, when it's power efficient and in terms of discrete (ati) and integrated graphics in the core, dwarfs intel, and what's more, and this is the point I am making, it offers them exclusivity to not chase after the core whatever intel market, pandering to intel, and comparing themsleves in specs to any run of the mill pc manufacturer.
What's more, what the ipad has supremely shown is that a closely knitted integration of hardware and os, makes the actual "hard" specs not very relevant. AMD can give that to apple, they can be the closest thing to an x86 "in house" design team as apple can get. Open CL is there too, to get the gpu advantages. Having a close alliance with the best gpu manufacturer, and an up and coming (again) force in cpu, especially when the cpu/gpu merge is around the corner is a very good proposition for apple indeed. They 'll have ati gpu cards cheaper, better and faster than anyone else, and possibly a very good gpu/cpu processor.
If AMD can deliver 75% or 70% of the performance for 50% of the price, and can miniturize that, increase the number of cores, or provide adequate cooling systems and technological justification for using double the normal space for the same price, while delivering vastly superior built in graphics, in the 1GB VRAM and higher range, then Apple will *jump* at the chance to re-engineer their products to these specs, because Apple will be able to deliver more bang *and* less bucks, and start offering higher end systems for less... while using 'less advanced technology'. If Apple can work out an agreement with AMD where AMD provides Apple exactly what it wants in terms of capabilities, even at the expense of space, Apple will be quite pleased. If this relationship is established, and works out in the long run, Apple could conceivably buy AMD as an independantly owned subsidiary, and start taking the whole design process in-house.
Intel was in the same shoe. Have you already forgotten the P4/D days? If it weren't for AMD licensing their technology, we would not have seen intel core2 platform.
Either way, we've seen IBM, MOTO, INTC, and AMD fumbling through here and there. It seems the table is turning and AMD may be taking the crown back for next few years to come. Apple took INTC's hand when intel was rising and it does make sense for apple to do the same with AMD this time around.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
Not really true at all. Intel got into a rut because their process technology was so much better than anyone else's that they thought they go forever with it. It turned out that the laws of physics intervened. Meanwhile, AMD was so far behind in that department that they were forced to come out with chip technologies (similar to what IBM was doing with the G5) to counter it. What they did was nothing special that Intel couldn't have also done..
When Intel had problems with Prescott, because of leakage at 90 nm, as everyone else was having to a lessor extent because their speeds were lower, they changed course, and went back to their "M" series of chips which were more efficient, and the rest, as they say, is history.
AMD is behind, no doubt. They no longer have anything that Intel doesn't, but Intel is doing more with their chips than AMD can.
And Intel doesn't have to license anything from AMD. They certainly didn't get their two core technology from them. Their implementation of the on-die controller is also better than AMD's.
Don't try to change history. Except for that two years when Intel was sleeping at the wheel, AMD has been a non starter; always behind.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
Except that Intel's two core chips have been beating AMD's four core chips.
hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.
Except that they're behind on their roadmap. Look how long it took them to get their current lines working properly. They were delayed six months, then they came in substantially below their intended speeds. Why should be feel that won't happen again?
AMD isn't just competing for performance but also power efficiency technology. I am sure you have heard of Cool'n Quiet, and now the turbo mode is a way to save power when processor/cores are at idle or when not all cores are stressed. The low power cpu sector gets even more interesting because we have more competition. I've read some good things about VIA and Nvidia becoming potent competition for both AMD and Intel in the portable cpu sector. The point is, whatever Intel delivers, AMD can also deliver but the future looks more brighter for AMD when looking ahead for next few years. I am sure Apple sees it, too.
Let's get the latter part out of the way first. There is no way that Nvidia is going to produce x86 chips, because they have no license for it. That's out.
Via makes crappy cpu's. they can't compete, and it's not certain they will be allowed to make current models.
I'd like to see some proof that AMD's mobile chips are more efficient than Intel's, and more powerful.
I worte an bloody long piece in office and IE somehow manage to lose it all for me
AMD CPU needs Apple
May be a reason why AMD's executive are seen in Infinite Loop instead of Apple going over to AMD. AMD weakest link is their PR, Marketing and Advertising. Having Apple using their CPU is a advertising campaign that is worth more then billion dollars.
But there are many things AMD aren't suited to Apple.
1. Fabs Capacity
AMD are actually selling as many chips as they can make. So what is holding AMD fro grabbing more market shares is not Intel. It is actually AMD itself. Although GF should turn the situation around with Fabs acquire from Charted Semi and New Fab in NY and Germany. Depending on Situation it may be as late as 2012 before they are in operation.
2. SandyBridge
If Intel wanted they could get an Desktop Version of SandyBridge for Volume production in three months time. Sticking to their current schedule we will have Mobile and Desktop version of Sandybridge launch at the same time in late 2010 / early 2011. And dont expect are volume hick up because Somehow Intel manage to complete 4 32nm Fabs transition by the end of 2010. They have finish 2 already. Which is the fastest Fabs transition Intel have done.
3. ATI / IGP
It is very unlikely Apple want ATI. Apple want a GPU that does GPGPU well, and less importance is placed on Gaming. And ATI is lacking well behind compare to Nvidia. So unless AMD allows Apple to use AMD CPU with a Nvidia GPU. GPGPU requires a lot of software engineers writing good driver for Mac OSX. Which ATI is lacking, personally i think AMD hate Intel much more then Nvidia.
4. Bulldozer
Giving the current facts about Bulldozer and SandyBridge. Expect Bulldozer to perform better at Interger and slightly worst at Floating Points. This is not such a bad thing because AMD wants to move Floating Points calculation to the GPU. However Bulldozer was not a Mobile / Power Concerned Design from Ground up. Even if it did. AMD has never been good at it compare to Intel.
5. Price
Some people thinks Apple could get an better pricing from AMD then Intel. Which is simply not true. It is very likely that Apple got some VERY favorable pricing from Intel.
6. Intel / Nvidia IGP.
Apple wanted a two Chip design for their basic Platform. A CPU and MGPU ( Motherbroad GPU , or a Chipset with IGP ) and Traditional thee Chips for Higher End. With the coming of Optimus / Optimus Like system, Intel IGP is no longer a bad thing. Since it actually provide best Performance / Watts in all situations. If previously Apple wanted a decent GPU in CPU, Apple would now likely wants a super low Power IGP in CPU instead. ( PowerVR）
As to Nvidia IGP, this will be fixed once SandyBridge is out. Since it has a PCI-Express 2.0 / 3.0 inside, a Nvidia IGP will simply connect with that instead.
Except that they're behind on their roadmap. Look how long it took them to get their current lines working properly. They were delayed six months, then they came in substantially below their intended speeds. Why should be feel that won't happen again?
They have to prove it.
AMD isn't the only company guilty of being delayed with their roadmap. Even mighty Intel cut back on the development of Larrabee because of disappointing results on the graphics portion of their chips.
One thing though, the disparity between AMD and Intel's graphics performance are much greater than the disparity between their CPU performance. If AMD can come up with a processor that balances the graphic needs and CPU needs, they can potentially compete with Intel.
They don't even have to match the I7's raw power. Just reduce the performance difference between what they have coming out and increase the gap in the graphics part while maintaining a huge price difference, and they have a winner. What's the use of a processor if its hamstrung by a relative lack of graphics and GPU related performance?
Anyway, while I do believe AMD and Apple are in talks, its more about presenting their new Fusion processors to Apple. AMD has reportedly been giving pre-production versions of their Fusion processors to many manufacturers and Apple is just one of those manufacturers that AMD is talking to.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
I don't want to rely on more ifs. Intel has a great product, and we know they can supply it. When they have a delay, I don't worry, because I know it will be short. With AMD, it could be years.
In addition, some of the most frequent talk in the microprocessor industry is what AMD s losing by no longer having their own manufacturing. Intel developed the best processes in the world because they control every bit of it. They have their program which duplicates chip plants almost down to the finest dust particle. What does AMD have now? Nothing!
Both Nvidia and ATI know what problems you can get into using someone elses' manufacturing. Look at the problems TMSC continually has.
As Apple's sale continue to rise between 25 to 40% a year, I don't see how they can afford to take the chance that the far smaller AMD, with no guaranteed manufacturing capabilities will always be able to meet their needs. We hopefully remember the problems they had, and WHY the went to Intel rather than AMD, as some thought they would.
I hope these talks, if they are real, are about gpus rather than cpus.
Is that true? Apple desktop sales are growing? Everyone else is dropping out?
I am sure that desktop sales are still growing as the market is still growing, it's just that notebook growth is so large that desktop marketshare is shrinking. According to this recent report, Apple's iMac accounts for 25% of desktop sales.
3. Ati has not lagged behind Nvidia in GPU recently. In fact the leadership crown has been flip flopping between the two companies for a while.
5. AMD Is a lot cheaper than Intel at certain levels. See my first post in this thread.
6. AMD Fusion is still superior. Better GPU with better support for OpenCL. I dont see much reason to put up with Intel's slow IGP.
AMD makes sense at the low end. People buy Mac mini or Macbooks because they represent good value & performance for the money. AMD would do well for these lines.
Comments
hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.
Oh I agree. I have no aversion to AMD cpus in Macs per se. If they offer better performance I'm all for them.
The cpu is a component like the HDD. I want the best for my money. I don't care who makes it.
The cpu is a component like the HDD. I want the best for my money. I don't care who makes it.
Speaking of... I don't if anyone read my previous notes on it earlier in the week or if they were aware of the issue at all, but Apple was using Nvidia SATA II controllers.
The last release or two had some wonky issue that they only ran at 1.5Gbps (which limited SSD speeds). Apple eventually updated this with a drive update but they still had problems with 3rd-party drives.
Now they are back to using Intel SATA II controllers and all 3rd-party drive tests are working well. I'm now considering an Intel X-25 for my next Mac. Too bad Apple doesn't offer them on their store.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
I don't really see the argument for putting AMD chips in the Mac Pro either. Intel Xeons have had the lead in workstation applications over Opteron since returning to competition with Woodcrest. Where Opteron can still really push against Xeon is in servers where AMD's higher core counts can be better taken advantage of compared to Intel's higher IPC, higher clock speed processors, but I can't really see Apple designing a dedicated AMD platform just for XServes and not maintain commonality with the Mac Pro to benefit from economies of scale.
If 16 Bulldozer cores > 8 Sandy Bridge cores then that may mean Bulldozer's the way to go. Magny-cours trades blows with Westmere and current speculation is that the K10 to Bulldozer performance increase will be larger than the Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge performance increase.
As for AMD's 2011 desktop products, they don't look quite as good to me as their server and Fusion products, so the iMac might stay with Intel in 2011.
I think the concept of what's a core will need to be reconsidered with Bulldozer if Hypertheading didn't already motivate this concern. In Bulldozer, each core that the OS sees is primarily just an integer based core with 2 ALUs, 2 AGUs, a L1 data cache, but not dedicated FPU, L2 cache or instruction decoders. Instead 2 of these integer cores are combined with a shared floating point core and wrapped with the instruction decode front-end and shared L2 cache. When AMD is talking about core counts with Bulldozer they are talking about integer cores and not the full module. In other words, top-end 16 core Bulldozer CPUs have 16 integer cores in 8 full processing modules. This should give AMD a large boost in integer performance which is something that the Core processors have traditionally had the advantage in. However Intel is really not in a true 2:1 core count disadvantage as the raw core count numbers seem to indicate.
I think Magny-Cours ability to keep up with Westmere is mainly in well-threaded server applications. I believe this to be the case in workstation applications like the Mac Pro.
Speaking of... I don't if anyone read my previous notes on it earlier in the week or if they were aware of the issue at all, but Apple was using Nvidia SATA II controllers.
The last release or two had some wonky issue that they only ran at 1.5Gbps (which limited SSD speeds). Apple eventually updated this with a drive update but they still had problems with 3rd-party drives.
Now they are back to using Intel SATA II controllers and all 3rd-party drive tests are working well. I'm now considering an Intel X-25 for my next Mac. Too bad Apple doesn't offer them on their store.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
Didn't notice that. Nice find.
Good to see that Apple are using the better SATA controllers. I'm pretty sure that my next Mac laptop will have a SSD.
PS: Did you notice the largest storage capacity for notebooks they offer is an SSD despite the unibody MBPs being able to take a 12.7mm HDD which puts them in the 1TB range, or at least 750GB for a 9.5mm HDD.
Really, 15" Unibody MacBook Pros can use 12mm HDDs? That's good to know. Personally, I'm disappointed that nobody has released larger 7200rpm 2.5" HDDs than 500GB. I think a 640GB 7200rpm HDD would be a good compromise between capacity, speed and cost compared to SSDs.
It doesn't sound like you're talking about notebook processors in any regard. Just having the fastest chip per dollar won't make AMD dominate in any realistic sense. Without being able to compete with Intel on power and efficiency we're going to continue to see Intel stale their notebook releases and keep their prices high.
AMD isn't just competing for performance but also power efficiency technology. I am sure you have heard of Cool'n Quiet, and now the turbo mode is a way to save power when processor/cores are at idle or when not all cores are stressed. The low power cpu sector gets even more interesting because we have more competition. I've read some good things about VIA and Nvidia becoming potent competition for both AMD and Intel in the portable cpu sector. The point is, whatever Intel delivers, AMD can also deliver but the future looks more brighter for AMD when looking ahead for next few years. I am sure Apple sees it, too.
AMD at the same time offers real promise based on a new architecture in their cpus that might or might not match intel, but it will definitely outperform them in the graphics area. And I think apple can help them in many domains to bring their vision to the market and establish themselves in what is arguably the best platform on the globe, OS X. They can help amd financially, they can assist with production issues. But at the same time apple will be getting a much needed exclusivity that intel is unwilling and incapable at offering. Who cares if in a year or two apple gets a cpu that's 10% worse off than intel, when it's power efficient and in terms of discrete (ati) and integrated graphics in the core, dwarfs intel, and what's more, and this is the point I am making, it offers them exclusivity to not chase after the core whatever intel market, pandering to intel, and comparing themsleves in specs to any run of the mill pc manufacturer.
What's more, what the ipad has supremely shown is that a closely knitted integration of hardware and os, makes the actual "hard" specs not very relevant. AMD can give that to apple, they can be the closest thing to an x86 "in house" design team as apple can get. Open CL is there too, to get the gpu advantages. Having a close alliance with the best gpu manufacturer, and an up and coming (again) force in cpu, especially when the cpu/gpu merge is around the corner is a very good proposition for apple indeed. They 'll have ati gpu cards cheaper, better and faster than anyone else, and possibly a very good gpu/cpu processor.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Intel was in the same shoe. Have you already forgotten the P4/D days? If it weren't for AMD licensing their technology, we would not have seen intel core2 platform.
Either way, we've seen IBM, MOTO, INTC, and AMD fumbling through here and there. It seems the table is turning and AMD may be taking the crown back for next few years to come. Apple took INTC's hand when intel was rising and it does make sense for apple to do the same with AMD this time around.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
Not really true at all. Intel got into a rut because their process technology was so much better than anyone else's that they thought they go forever with it. It turned out that the laws of physics intervened. Meanwhile, AMD was so far behind in that department that they were forced to come out with chip technologies (similar to what IBM was doing with the G5) to counter it. What they did was nothing special that Intel couldn't have also done..
When Intel had problems with Prescott, because of leakage at 90 nm, as everyone else was having to a lessor extent because their speeds were lower, they changed course, and went back to their "M" series of chips which were more efficient, and the rest, as they say, is history.
AMD is behind, no doubt. They no longer have anything that Intel doesn't, but Intel is doing more with their chips than AMD can.
And Intel doesn't have to license anything from AMD. They certainly didn't get their two core technology from them. Their implementation of the on-die controller is also better than AMD's.
Don't try to change history. Except for that two years when Intel was sleeping at the wheel, AMD has been a non starter; always behind.
It's not as if AMD is going to be horrible in battery life this year.
I don't believe it. No PC has ever come close to their battery ratings.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
Except that Intel's two core chips have been beating AMD's four core chips.
I see no reason to believe that will change soon.
hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.
Except that they're behind on their roadmap. Look how long it took them to get their current lines working properly. They were delayed six months, then they came in substantially below their intended speeds. Why should be feel that won't happen again?
They have to prove it.
AMD isn't just competing for performance but also power efficiency technology. I am sure you have heard of Cool'n Quiet, and now the turbo mode is a way to save power when processor/cores are at idle or when not all cores are stressed. The low power cpu sector gets even more interesting because we have more competition. I've read some good things about VIA and Nvidia becoming potent competition for both AMD and Intel in the portable cpu sector. The point is, whatever Intel delivers, AMD can also deliver but the future looks more brighter for AMD when looking ahead for next few years. I am sure Apple sees it, too.
Let's get the latter part out of the way first. There is no way that Nvidia is going to produce x86 chips, because they have no license for it. That's out.
Via makes crappy cpu's. they can't compete, and it's not certain they will be allowed to make current models.
I'd like to see some proof that AMD's mobile chips are more efficient than Intel's, and more powerful.
AMD CPU needs Apple
May be a reason why AMD's executive are seen in Infinite Loop instead of Apple going over to AMD. AMD weakest link is their PR, Marketing and Advertising. Having Apple using their CPU is a advertising campaign that is worth more then billion dollars.
But there are many things AMD aren't suited to Apple.
1. Fabs Capacity
AMD are actually selling as many chips as they can make. So what is holding AMD fro grabbing more market shares is not Intel. It is actually AMD itself. Although GF should turn the situation around with Fabs acquire from Charted Semi and New Fab in NY and Germany. Depending on Situation it may be as late as 2012 before they are in operation.
2. SandyBridge
If Intel wanted they could get an Desktop Version of SandyBridge for Volume production in three months time. Sticking to their current schedule we will have Mobile and Desktop version of Sandybridge launch at the same time in late 2010 / early 2011. And dont expect are volume hick up because Somehow Intel manage to complete 4 32nm Fabs transition by the end of 2010. They have finish 2 already. Which is the fastest Fabs transition Intel have done.
3. ATI / IGP
It is very unlikely Apple want ATI. Apple want a GPU that does GPGPU well, and less importance is placed on Gaming. And ATI is lacking well behind compare to Nvidia. So unless AMD allows Apple to use AMD CPU with a Nvidia GPU. GPGPU requires a lot of software engineers writing good driver for Mac OSX. Which ATI is lacking, personally i think AMD hate Intel much more then Nvidia.
4. Bulldozer
Giving the current facts about Bulldozer and SandyBridge. Expect Bulldozer to perform better at Interger and slightly worst at Floating Points. This is not such a bad thing because AMD wants to move Floating Points calculation to the GPU. However Bulldozer was not a Mobile / Power Concerned Design from Ground up. Even if it did. AMD has never been good at it compare to Intel.
5. Price
Some people thinks Apple could get an better pricing from AMD then Intel. Which is simply not true. It is very likely that Apple got some VERY favorable pricing from Intel.
6. Intel / Nvidia IGP.
Apple wanted a two Chip design for their basic Platform. A CPU and MGPU ( Motherbroad GPU , or a Chipset with IGP ) and Traditional thee Chips for Higher End. With the coming of Optimus / Optimus Like system, Intel IGP is no longer a bad thing. Since it actually provide best Performance / Watts in all situations. If previously Apple wanted a decent GPU in CPU, Apple would now likely wants a super low Power IGP in CPU instead. ( PowerVR）
As to Nvidia IGP, this will be fixed once SandyBridge is out. Since it has a PCI-Express 2.0 / 3.0 inside, a Nvidia IGP will simply connect with that instead.
six pages of a WHINING
Diversity is a good thing and whether AMD is a good proc-maker or not Intel shouldn't have a monopoly.
Yet Apple is the only OEM that appears to be growing in desktop sales while everyone else is dropping out.
Is that true? Apple desktop sales are growing? Everyone else is dropping out?
Except that they're behind on their roadmap. Look how long it took them to get their current lines working properly. They were delayed six months, then they came in substantially below their intended speeds. Why should be feel that won't happen again?
They have to prove it.
AMD isn't the only company guilty of being delayed with their roadmap. Even mighty Intel cut back on the development of Larrabee because of disappointing results on the graphics portion of their chips.
One thing though, the disparity between AMD and Intel's graphics performance are much greater than the disparity between their CPU performance. If AMD can come up with a processor that balances the graphic needs and CPU needs, they can potentially compete with Intel.
They don't even have to match the I7's raw power. Just reduce the performance difference between what they have coming out and increase the gap in the graphics part while maintaining a huge price difference, and they have a winner. What's the use of a processor if its hamstrung by a relative lack of graphics and GPU related performance?
Anyway, while I do believe AMD and Apple are in talks, its more about presenting their new Fusion processors to Apple. AMD has reportedly been giving pre-production versions of their Fusion processors to many manufacturers and Apple is just one of those manufacturers that AMD is talking to.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
I don't want to rely on more ifs. Intel has a great product, and we know they can supply it. When they have a delay, I don't worry, because I know it will be short. With AMD, it could be years.
In addition, some of the most frequent talk in the microprocessor industry is what AMD s losing by no longer having their own manufacturing. Intel developed the best processes in the world because they control every bit of it. They have their program which duplicates chip plants almost down to the finest dust particle. What does AMD have now? Nothing!
Both Nvidia and ATI know what problems you can get into using someone elses' manufacturing. Look at the problems TMSC continually has.
As Apple's sale continue to rise between 25 to 40% a year, I don't see how they can afford to take the chance that the far smaller AMD, with no guaranteed manufacturing capabilities will always be able to meet their needs. We hopefully remember the problems they had, and WHY the went to Intel rather than AMD, as some thought they would.
I hope these talks, if they are real, are about gpus rather than cpus.
Apple outsources manufacturing, i see no truble
Is that true? Apple desktop sales are growing? Everyone else is dropping out?
I am sure that desktop sales are still growing as the market is still growing, it's just that notebook growth is so large that desktop marketshare is shrinking. According to this recent report, Apple's iMac accounts for 25% of desktop sales.
I do not believe some of your points are correct.
3. Ati has not lagged behind Nvidia in GPU recently. In fact the leadership crown has been flip flopping between the two companies for a while.
5. AMD Is a lot cheaper than Intel at certain levels. See my first post in this thread.
6. AMD Fusion is still superior. Better GPU with better support for OpenCL. I dont see much reason to put up with Intel's slow IGP.
AMD makes sense at the low end. People buy Mac mini or Macbooks because they represent good value & performance for the money. AMD would do well for these lines.