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.
Have you not heard of ARM A9 SoC? I think Nvidia calls them tegra or something. Can't say they're supercomputer capability chips, but they are sibling/upgrade in design to Apple's A4 SoC.
Were we talking about mobile supercomputers? For the required function for mobile computer, all of them will do fine, including VIA and Nvidia.
Have you not heard of ARM A9 SoC? I think Nvidia calls them tegra or something. Can't say they're supercomputer capability chips, but they are sibling/upgrade in design to Apple's A4 SoC.
I'm not following you here.
To be clear, ARM A9 (Core) = Cortex (Family) = ARM v7 (Architecture Version).
Also, Tegra first arrived using ARM11 = ARM v6 ≠ Cortex.
The next release is Tegra 2 and will ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which is 2-4 cores. Apple's A4 is ARM Cortex-A8, which is a single core. Both are ARMv7-A.
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.
I am referring to GPGPU aspect. Not Gaming. GPGPU are more about Drivers and Software rather then the Actual Hardware. ATI is lacking in this area especially on the Mac platform. Both Nvidia and ATI is equally OpenCL compliant at this time.
Quote:
5. AMD Is a lot cheaper than Intel at certain levels. See my first post in this thread.
Certain Levels. Yes, that is Workstation and Servers. As your first post stated. Intel has clear advantage in that area because server Admin are reluctant to choose AMD over Intel. Therefore Intel can Mark the price what ever they want.
In Desktop / Laptop OEM Market, Intel as a Platform ( Chipset, Wireless ) is not that much more expensive then AMD. People continue to think AMD are cheaper due to its retail pricing.
Quote:
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.
There is the Key problem to Fusion. ( One which everyone seems to miss )
It uses old CPU core and Old APU ( GPU ) core.
Its CPU is the current phantom and not Bulldozer with some tweaks for lower power consumption.
Its APU / GPU is the OLD Radeon 4000 Series. A lot of people still find it strange that a CPU coming out in 1 years time will be using technology that is 3 years old when it launch. And more importantly Radeon 4000 is actually not OpenCL 1.0 hardware compliant. While there is OpenCL driver for it, there are certain function which uses CPU as emulation. ( Much like how Intel provide Shader Support on its IGP ). Therefore OpenCL on Radeon 4000 is very slow.
There is the Key problem to Fusion. ( One which everyone seems to miss )
It uses old CPU core and Old APU ( GPU ) core.
Its CPU is the current phantom and not Bulldozer with some tweaks for lower power consumption.
Its APU / GPU is the OLD Radeon 4000 Series. A lot of people still find it strange that a CPU coming out in 1 years time will be using technology that is 3 years old when it launch. And more importantly Radeon 4000 is actually not OpenCL 1.0 hardware compliant. While there is OpenCL driver for it, there are certain function which uses CPU as emulation. ( Much like how Intel provide Shader Support on its IGP ). Therefore OpenCL on Radeon 4000 is very slow.
Cheesy Marketing Names for Cool Tech, AMD Velocity Ensures New Designs Every 12 Months
AMD?s first APUs drop in 2011, but what happens in 2012? Intel is committed to new microprocessor architectures every 2 years as a part of its tick-tock strategy. AMD?s GPU-inspired equivalent is called Velocity.
About every year we get a new GPU architecture, whether it?s a strict doubling of execution resources or something more significant, it happens like clockwork assuming TSMC isn?t fabbing the chips. AMD Velocity just states that, in turn, every year we?ll get a brand new chip that integrates this new GPU architecture. The CPU side may or may not change, but with yearly design cycles we could see regular improvements on that end as well.
Velocity also means that even if it?s difficult getting more performance out of a CPU architecture, AMD can always rely on a beefed up GPU core to give users a reason to upgrade.
This is all going to get real interesting once we have some good GPU compute applications to run on these things. For GPU compute apps, every year could be another Conroe, with ~20% performance gains just from the GPU improvements.
We just need the apps to support it. And no NVIDIA, what we have today isn?t enough
Fusion is not out yet so there's no comparison to be made but AMD/ATI is certainly going to evolve quickly whether its CPU advances or GPU advance. Intel's lack of IGP technology means they have to focus soley on CPU improvements because they continue to fail in the GPU arena.
Fusion is not out yet so there's no comparison to be made but AMD/ATI is certainly going to evolve quickly whether its CPU advances or GPU advance. Intel's lack of IGP technology means they have to focus soley on CPU improvements because they continue to fail in the GPU arena.
So, we are settle that first gen fusion wont work on Apple. By 2012 AMD may have a chance of a product that suit apple. 2 years is quite a long time in technology industry. 2012 we have IvyBridge, which offer FMA as well as Double the Graphics of SandyBridge.
Fusion, by look of it, would work like Intel's tick tock model. Where they upgrade the core of APU and CPU every alternate year.
So if the best happen that 2nd Gen Fusion have both new Bulldozer CPU Core and Radeon 5000 APU / GPU. Intel 's IvyBridge, will have a better CPU and unknown GPU performance.
Side Note. The real problem with Intel IGP has never been its hardware. But Intel 's Drivers.
So, we are settle that first gen fusion wont work on Apple. By 2012 AMD may have a chance of a product that suit apple. 2 years is quite a long time in technology industry. 2012 we have IvyBridge, which offer FMA as well as Double the Graphics of SandyBridge.
Fusion, by look of it, would work like Intel's tick tock model. Where they upgrade the core of APU and CPU every alternate year.
So if the best happen that 2nd Gen Fusion have both new Bulldozer CPU Core and Radeon 5000 APU / GPU. Intel 's IvyBridge, will have a better CPU and unknown GPU performance.
Side Note. The real problem with Intel IGP has never been its hardware. But Intel 's Drivers.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
In 2012 I'd like to see.
5x7 iPad model for $349
9.7 iPad models starting at $499 with Dual Core ARM based processing
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
I don't think Apple has any problem with remaining competitive. They are making money hand-over-fist with excellent growth each quarter. As a shareholder I wish the growth was slower to keep the expectations down a bit to help sustain growth.
Quote:
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
If it was at $899 wouldn't people just assume it's overpriced and say "I think it's a $799 at best laptop." That seems to be the way these things works.
Quote:
]Macbook Fusion - $799
That is 20% lower than the current MacBook price. Does AMD Fusion really account for that or are there are aspects needed to lower the price, like a cheaper LCD, no LED backlight, smaller, less dense battery, etc.?
Then there are the economic issues to deal with. Apple would have to get a much higher profit per unit to maintain the same profit per unit at the $999 price. That isn't as easy to do the cheaper you go. They can make up for it with increased unit sales but that isn't something you choose to do until you saturate a market at a certain price point. The next tier would then be $899, not $799, and as you enter into a lower price point the market gets larger and it will likely take longer before you need to expand again. So far, I have seen no plateauing of the Mac notebook line to account for a drop in price by 20% to attract new buyers.
That is 20% lower than the current MacBook price. Does AMD Fusion really account for that or are there are aspects needed to lower the price, like a cheaper LCD, no LED backlight, smaller, less dense battery, etc.?
Then there are the economic issues to deal with. Apple would have to get a much higher profit per unit to maintain the same profit per unit at the $999 price. That isn't as easy to do the cheaper you go. They can make up for it with increased unit sales but that isn't something you choose to do until you saturate a market at a certain price point. The next tier would then be $899, not $799, and as you enter into a lower price point the market gets larger and it will likely take longer before you need to expand again. So far, I have seen no plateauing of the Mac notebook line to account for a drop in price by 20% to attract new buyers.
Just hopped on Best Buy
Dell
Sony
HP
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
I thought to myself "well Apple's not doing badly with the Core i3 and the GPU switching tech" and then it dawned on me that I was thinking about the MBP 13" specs. (oops
the MBP 13 is still a C2D)
Here's the newest Macbook
Quote:
2.26GHz : 250GB
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3 memory
250GB hard drive1
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
Built-in 7-hour battery2
Polycarbonate unibody enclosur
This is not getting it done. I was all set to have the "talk" with my mother about looking at the Macbook assuming that it'd be $799 based on these specs leaked from Microcenter. When it came out at $999 I knew I wasn't going to make a peep.
I'll recommend a Mac mini instead and mate it with a HD display. Apple mailed it in with this last Macbook refresh.
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
I'm not understanding your point. It's not that Apple can't offer a cheaper system and/or a system that makes less profit, it's that they don't have to because they offer things other vendors can't touch which sets them apart from the rest.
It's clear that very few PC buyers understand or care about these HW specs. They just want a machine that does what they need it to do.
All things being equal Core-i7 for $999 is better than C2D for $999, but all things aren't equal. The MB/MBPs tend to be thinner, having larger batteries yet weight considerably less, have superior construction, have tech support that promotes consumer confidence, and use an OS that consumers tend to find friendlier.
Before we start comparing Dell, Sony and HP to Macs why don't we first compare a $999 Core-i7 Dell, Sony or HP with a more expensive Core-i7 PC from the same vendor. Case in point, Sony Viao Z w/ Core i5. Starts at $1899. Want Blu-ray, add 500 (yet a full Blu-ray player for your HDTV is under $100). Want Core-i7, that's $150 more (yet it's the same exact socket as Core-i5 and only costs $75 more according to Intel's per/1000 unit price list).
Quote:
I thought to myself "well Apple's not doing badly with the Core i3 and the GPU switching tech" and then it dawned on me that I was thinking about the MBP 13" specs.
The 13" MBP is C2D with Nvidia 320M, which is was the right way to go this time when you look at the specs for the Core-i3. Next time, though, they'll have to move to Core-i, but I suspect it will be Core-i5 and require a major revision.
I'm surprised that everyone is looking at the AMD option so narrowly. I'd imagine Apple would go for a major license investment and custom build x64 processors with AMD for certain machines. I would imagine this is what would be required for a well designed touch iMac or Mac Mini. A custom x64 would also be really nice for a future version of OSX redesigned with touch in mind. That would be they only way AMD could match Apple's design philosophy of building the best computing machines out there.
Any other scenario wouldn't make sense with Apple's design philosophy. Cost isn't the issue when people happily pay $2,000+ for a MacBook Pro. Apple would need a particular advantage over Intel, which AMD does not offer right now. Acquiring even standard AMD processors for low end machines would mean a significant performance per watt advantage over Intel to be the best machine.
I'm not understanding your point. It's not that Apple can't offer a cheaper system and/or a system that makes less profit, it's that they don't have to because they offer things other vendors can't touch which sets them apart from the rest.
The 13" MBP is C2D with Nvidia 320M, which is was the right way to go this time when you look at the specs for the Core-i3. Next time, though, they'll have to move to Core-i, but I suspect it will be Core-i5 and require a major revision.
How this ALL ties into AMD is this.
The MBP are more either more expensive than they need to be or spec'd lower than they need to be because adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics.
Now granted discrete graphics have always been preferrable to IGP but I wonder if that will be the case going forward as we move from 32nm process and down (within the context of portable computing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MShock
I'm surprised that everyone is looking at the AMD option so narrowly. I'd imagine Apple would go for a major license investment and custom build x64 processors with AMD for certain machines. I would imagine this is what would be required for a well designed touch iMac or Mac Mini. A custom x64 would also be really nice for a future version of OSX redesigned with touch in mind. That would be they only way AMD could match Apple's design philosophy of building the best computing machines out there.
Any other scenario wouldn't make sense with Apple's design philosophy. Cost isn't the issue when people happily pay $2,000+ for a MacBook Pro. Apple would need a particular advantage over Intel, which AMD does not offer right now. Acquiring even standard AMD processors for low end machines would mean a significant performance per watt advantage over Intel to be the best machine.
AMD may be able to offer some custom stuff for Apple depending on how much of Apple's business they'd get in on. I'd love to have further confirmation that AMD and Apple are having advanced discussion.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations. As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
In 2012 I'd like to see.
5x7 iPad model for $349
9.7 iPad models starting at $499 with Dual Core ARM based processing
Mac mini Fusion - $499
Macbook Fusion - $799
That brings Apple in at every price point.
Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
How this ALL ties into AMD is this.
The MBP are more either more expensive than they need to be or spec'd lower than they need to be because adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics.
Now granted discrete graphics have always been preferrable to IGP but I wonder if that will be the case going forward as we move from 32nm process and down (within the context of portable computing)
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs. Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations. As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
It remains to be seen how Bulldozer's duoply 128-bit units function. I think for Apple it would be trivial to support both depending on how much of Clang/LLVM Apple's able to integrate into Xcode 4.x and on. I'm pretty confident that both AMD and Intel will be strong here. I'm betting that Wolfram is pretty excited about what 2011 is going to bring for serious number crunching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs. Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
Intel's lower cost items perform almost unacceptably low in graphics. Basically you get a great CPU and so so GPU. Now I'm still not sold on OpenCL (primarly because i've not seen one decent demo that shows me the promise of GPGPU computing) but i've got to think that we are on the cusp of seeing the GPU finally become a peer processing unit for general users. If that's the case AMD closes the gap with Intel in performance (due to superior GPU) and we know they'll come in cheaper overall in price. Performance/Watt though is going to be very important.
I agree with you. I'd love to see Fusion on lower end space constrained product and Intel on the midrange and perhaps both on the high end.
It behooves us all to have two CPU vendors that can push X86 forward since PPC is done as a high volume desktop platform.
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.
Melgross;
I see that you have refused to respond to my legitimate questions before; in case you missed them, here is the link:
These are not rhetorical questions, and warrant real answers based on your claims.
If there is no response, I guess we will have to take that your writings in this thread are largely baseless and simply come from your personal misconceptions.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Yes, i already said Bulldozer version of Fusion will compete with IvyBridge, not SandyBridge. Which makes the matter worse. And by AMD's track record, they have been missing target deadline all the time.
Quote:
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
As someone point out. Apple doesn't need to lower price to Stay competitive. As a business model, Apple are like LV and Gucci. Did you ever see LV and Gucci goes on Sale? Lower Price Point? These are premium brand. Smaller Mid Class Brand may make 10 - 20 times the volume and revenue, but they still make LESS TOTAL profits then Premium brand.
Quote:
Just hopped on Best Buy
Dell
Sony
HP
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
The problem are not within the component price. The highest cost of BOM inside all Macbook Pro and iMac is actually aluminum. Did you see ANY Price Range of Laptop out there build with a Single Block of Aluminum? Are there any laptop that gives you a feeling this thing is not going to break easily, because it is METAL!. Not Plastic.
I think all analyst were too busy with iPhone sales and iPad. Has no one realize the impact of Aluminium price risen by more then 50% in one years time?? Aluminium was a more expensive material to start with, and its price has only gone up. The unibody manufacturing process cost has also gone up.The Fixed Cost of MBP are much higher then other Laptop to Start with. That is why MBP cant get much lower price. And using AMD fusion wont save you $100 dollars.
For Lower Cost Computer, that is where Apple A4 ( ARM ) and iPad comes into play.
Quote:
adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics
Again as stated before. Two GPU in a computer is now an ideal way to go forward. Because of the way GPU works and designed, unless there is a major breakthrough you can never get a Powerful GPU to acceptable Idle power. You need a GPU for Low power ( GPU inside CPU ) and a discrete GPU for GPGPU usage and Heavy Graphics Lifting. Now it is not important if the GPU inside CPU is powerful or not ( In apple preparative ), they want the GPU inside CPU to be very power efficient. And Intel is doing a great job on this end.
Forgot to mention another point, Apple will still need to work with Intel on Lightpeak. And there are Intel software engineers on LLVM.
Yes, i already said Bulldozer version of Fusion will compete with IvyBridge, not SandyBridge. Which makes the matter worse.
Ivy Bridge will probably neutralize AMD's core count advantage unless Llano's successor ups its core counts. Then again they'll probably still be behind in GPU.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Intels strengths are there but that is often over stated. AMD chips still do pretty good in testing / benchmarking. Yes that depends upon the benchmark but what is notable here is that where AMD really fails in the benchmarks would make little difference to Apple as they have OpenCL to make up the difference.
Quote:
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
Actually it will be interesting to see how Bulldozer actually behaves on real code. I actually see AMD as really innovating here. Intel has SMT but that is really an old concept. Further Bulldozer ought to allow for a lot more cores on a die or lower overall power.
Quote:
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
Actually I don't think Apple gives a crap about where the AMD chips go. They need to knock heads with respect to NVidia and Intel. Intels behavior is absolutely counter productive considering the direction Apple wants to go. Integrating a GPU onto the CPU package is a bit to early in my estimation even if they had decent GPU?'s to integrate. They don't of course so Intel is really thumbing its noise at its customers by not fulfilling their needs.
Quote:
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
I don't know about that. As long as they sell Apple has little to worry about. Besides they certainly are a better value than many of the low cost machines they compete with.
Quote:
In 2012 I'd like to see.
Why 2012? Much of what you and I want can be had this year or early next.
Quote:
5x7 iPad model for $349
Actually I'd be willing to pay more if they address the short comings in the current iPad. The biggest being the utter lack of RAM. I'm very much interested in this size iPad but I don't want it compromised performance wise. In any event i could see this device coming with the fall iPod refresh.
Quote:
9.7 iPad models starting at $499 with Dual Core ARM based processing
I was hoping for dual core in the current machine but sadly it isn't there and even worst there is not enough memory (RAM) in the iPad to even bother with dual core.
Quote:
Mac mini Fusion - $499
I believe Apple could do a much better job with other AMD hardware. AMD/ATIs integrated GPU's are really just the nuts as they don't have to deal with RAM traffic, but more so I believe they have an integrated chip that actually has its own video memory. It might be a task fitting all this into a mini but it certainly would make for a nice machine.
In any event what I' getting at is that the Mini needs another massive boost in performance to keep the gulf between it and the iMac's reasonable. I don't see fusion filling that roll right away.
Quote:
Macbook Fusion - $799
That might actually work as long as there isn't a performance regression.
Quote:
That brings Apple in at every price point.
I'm more concerned about performance points than price points. While it would be nice to see an entry level Mini that sports good performance it isn't as important as having some sort of well performing machine at a reasonable price point. This brings up the ole X Mac of the past.
That is Apple needs to offer something bigger than a compact box that allows for very good performance at reasonable prices. AMD hardware can give Apple a performance advantage in a low cost machine, it just won't be in a compact box.
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations.
LLVM could be a big win for Apple here. Byte code could be compiled at run time to optimize for the hardware the code is running on.
Quote:
As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
Do You really think that Apple cares? Really look at the processor they use now in the majority of their hardware. We aren't talking Intels top of the line hardware here. Sure Apple will likely support Sandy Bridge in their high end hardware, but that leaves a lot of open space in the lower end of the hardware lineup. Further Apple is loosing customer because of glaring gaps in their hardware lineup, Bulldozer or other AMD hardware could offer Apple a way to fill those gaps. Mots importantly a way to fill those gaps with economical systems with good GPU choices.
Quote:
Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
The future doesn't look bright with Intel integrating crap GPU's into their CPU's. Besides Intels low end simply can't compete with AMD's current generation hardware.
Quote:
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs.
This may be very true today but the landscape is changing very quickly. With the move to 20nm or so there will be lots of room on a chip to keep the performance leading edge. At least compared to middle of the road GPU's. High end Discrete GPU's will just keep getting better but how many Apple products use those today?
Quote:
Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
I actually believe that Apple could have produced a better 13" MacBook Pro with AMD parts today. Mainly because of the way system components are distributed around the the chips in AMD systems. You might loose a little bit in battery life but performance could very well be equal of better than Core 2. Of course there are all the depends that go with such statements.
The other thing people seem to mis in this discussion is that Apple has had a lot of experience with AMD's bus systems using Hyper Transport in Power Macs. Plus the bus has ben adopted by a number of other big name systems builders. AMD is very much quality hardware and for a long time had the best bus going. I've seen others in this thread dismiss AMD as a second tier supplier but that is garbage. They have in many ways been responsible for Apples PPC success.
Comments
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.
Have you not heard of ARM A9 SoC? I think Nvidia calls them tegra or something. Can't say they're supercomputer capability chips, but they are sibling/upgrade in design to Apple's A4 SoC.
Were we talking about mobile supercomputers? For the required function for mobile computer, all of them will do fine, including VIA and Nvidia.
Have you not heard of ARM A9 SoC? I think Nvidia calls them tegra or something. Can't say they're supercomputer capability chips, but they are sibling/upgrade in design to Apple's A4 SoC.
I'm not following you here.
To be clear, ARM A9 (Core) = Cortex (Family) = ARM v7 (Architecture Version).
Also, Tegra first arrived using ARM11 = ARM v6 ≠ Cortex.
The next release is Tegra 2 and will ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which is 2-4 cores. Apple's A4 is ARM Cortex-A8, which is a single core. Both are ARMv7-A.
Ksec
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.
I am referring to GPGPU aspect. Not Gaming. GPGPU are more about Drivers and Software rather then the Actual Hardware. ATI is lacking in this area especially on the Mac platform. Both Nvidia and ATI is equally OpenCL compliant at this time.
5. AMD Is a lot cheaper than Intel at certain levels. See my first post in this thread.
Certain Levels. Yes, that is Workstation and Servers. As your first post stated. Intel has clear advantage in that area because server Admin are reluctant to choose AMD over Intel. Therefore Intel can Mark the price what ever they want.
In Desktop / Laptop OEM Market, Intel as a Platform ( Chipset, Wireless ) is not that much more expensive then AMD. People continue to think AMD are cheaper due to its retail pricing.
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.
There is the Key problem to Fusion. ( One which everyone seems to miss )
It uses old CPU core and Old APU ( GPU ) core.
Its CPU is the current phantom and not Bulldozer with some tweaks for lower power consumption.
Its APU / GPU is the OLD Radeon 4000 Series. A lot of people still find it strange that a CPU coming out in 1 years time will be using technology that is 3 years old when it launch. And more importantly Radeon 4000 is actually not OpenCL 1.0 hardware compliant. While there is OpenCL driver for it, there are certain function which uses CPU as emulation. ( Much like how Intel provide Shader Support on its IGP ). Therefore OpenCL on Radeon 4000 is very slow.
I'm not following you here.
To be clear, ARM A9 (Core)= Cortex (Family) = ARM v7 (Architecture Version).
Also, Tegra first arrived using ARM11 = ARM v6 ≠ Cortex.
The next release is Tegra 2 and will ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which is 2-4 cores. Apple's A4 is ARM Cortex-A8, which is a single core. Both are ARMv7-A.
Thanks for clearing that up.
There is the Key problem to Fusion. ( One which everyone seems to miss )
It uses old CPU core and Old APU ( GPU ) core.
Its CPU is the current phantom and not Bulldozer with some tweaks for lower power consumption.
Its APU / GPU is the OLD Radeon 4000 Series. A lot of people still find it strange that a CPU coming out in 1 years time will be using technology that is 3 years old when it launch. And more importantly Radeon 4000 is actually not OpenCL 1.0 hardware compliant. While there is OpenCL driver for it, there are certain function which uses CPU as emulation. ( Much like how Intel provide Shader Support on its IGP ). Therefore OpenCL on Radeon 4000 is very slow.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/3
Cheesy Marketing Names for Cool Tech, AMD Velocity Ensures New Designs Every 12 Months
AMD?s first APUs drop in 2011, but what happens in 2012? Intel is committed to new microprocessor architectures every 2 years as a part of its tick-tock strategy. AMD?s GPU-inspired equivalent is called Velocity.
About every year we get a new GPU architecture, whether it?s a strict doubling of execution resources or something more significant, it happens like clockwork assuming TSMC isn?t fabbing the chips. AMD Velocity just states that, in turn, every year we?ll get a brand new chip that integrates this new GPU architecture. The CPU side may or may not change, but with yearly design cycles we could see regular improvements on that end as well.
Velocity also means that even if it?s difficult getting more performance out of a CPU architecture, AMD can always rely on a beefed up GPU core to give users a reason to upgrade.
This is all going to get real interesting once we have some good GPU compute applications to run on these things. For GPU compute apps, every year could be another Conroe, with ~20% performance gains just from the GPU improvements.
We just need the apps to support it. And no NVIDIA, what we have today isn?t enough
Fusion is not out yet so there's no comparison to be made but AMD/ATI is certainly going to evolve quickly whether its CPU advances or GPU advance. Intel's lack of IGP technology means they have to focus soley on CPU improvements because they continue to fail in the GPU arena.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/3
Fusion is not out yet so there's no comparison to be made but AMD/ATI is certainly going to evolve quickly whether its CPU advances or GPU advance. Intel's lack of IGP technology means they have to focus soley on CPU improvements because they continue to fail in the GPU arena.
So, we are settle that first gen fusion wont work on Apple. By 2012 AMD may have a chance of a product that suit apple. 2 years is quite a long time in technology industry. 2012 we have IvyBridge, which offer FMA as well as Double the Graphics of SandyBridge.
Fusion, by look of it, would work like Intel's tick tock model. Where they upgrade the core of APU and CPU every alternate year.
So if the best happen that 2nd Gen Fusion have both new Bulldozer CPU Core and Radeon 5000 APU / GPU. Intel 's IvyBridge, will have a better CPU and unknown GPU performance.
Side Note. The real problem with Intel IGP has never been its hardware. But Intel 's Drivers.
So, we are settle that first gen fusion wont work on Apple. By 2012 AMD may have a chance of a product that suit apple. 2 years is quite a long time in technology industry. 2012 we have IvyBridge, which offer FMA as well as Double the Graphics of SandyBridge.
Fusion, by look of it, would work like Intel's tick tock model. Where they upgrade the core of APU and CPU every alternate year.
So if the best happen that 2nd Gen Fusion have both new Bulldozer CPU Core and Radeon 5000 APU / GPU. Intel 's IvyBridge, will have a better CPU and unknown GPU performance.
Side Note. The real problem with Intel IGP has never been its hardware. But Intel 's Drivers.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
In 2012 I'd like to see.
- 5x7 iPad model for $349
- 9.7 iPad models starting at $499 with Dual Core ARM based processing
- Mac mini Fusion - $499
- Macbook Fusion - $799
That brings Apple in at every price point.Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
I don't think Apple has any problem with remaining competitive. They are making money hand-over-fist with excellent growth each quarter. As a shareholder I wish the growth was slower to keep the expectations down a bit to help sustain growth.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
If it was at $899 wouldn't people just assume it's overpriced and say "I think it's a $799 at best laptop." That seems to be the way these things works.
]Macbook Fusion - $799
That is 20% lower than the current MacBook price. Does AMD Fusion really account for that or are there are aspects needed to lower the price, like a cheaper LCD, no LED backlight, smaller, less dense battery, etc.?
Then there are the economic issues to deal with. Apple would have to get a much higher profit per unit to maintain the same profit per unit at the $999 price. That isn't as easy to do the cheaper you go. They can make up for it with increased unit sales but that isn't something you choose to do until you saturate a market at a certain price point. The next tier would then be $899, not $799, and as you enter into a lower price point the market gets larger and it will likely take longer before you need to expand again. So far, I have seen no plateauing of the Mac notebook line to account for a drop in price by 20% to attract new buyers.
That is 20% lower than the current MacBook price. Does AMD Fusion really account for that or are there are aspects needed to lower the price, like a cheaper LCD, no LED backlight, smaller, less dense battery, etc.?
Then there are the economic issues to deal with. Apple would have to get a much higher profit per unit to maintain the same profit per unit at the $999 price. That isn't as easy to do the cheaper you go. They can make up for it with increased unit sales but that isn't something you choose to do until you saturate a market at a certain price point. The next tier would then be $899, not $799, and as you enter into a lower price point the market gets larger and it will likely take longer before you need to expand again. So far, I have seen no plateauing of the Mac notebook line to account for a drop in price by 20% to attract new buyers.
Just hopped on Best Buy
Dell
Sony
HP
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
I thought to myself "well Apple's not doing badly with the Core i3 and the GPU switching tech" and then it dawned on me that I was thinking about the MBP 13" specs. (oops
the MBP 13 is still a C2D)
Here's the newest Macbook
2.26GHz : 250GB
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3 memory
250GB hard drive1
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
Built-in 7-hour battery2
Polycarbonate unibody enclosur
This is not getting it done. I was all set to have the "talk" with my mother about looking at the Macbook assuming that it'd be $799 based on these specs leaked from Microcenter. When it came out at $999 I knew I wasn't going to make a peep.
I'll recommend a Mac mini instead and mate it with a HD display. Apple mailed it in with this last Macbook refresh.
Just hopped on Best Buy
Dell
Sony
HP
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
I'm not understanding your point. It's not that Apple can't offer a cheaper system and/or a system that makes less profit, it's that they don't have to because they offer things other vendors can't touch which sets them apart from the rest.
It's clear that very few PC buyers understand or care about these HW specs. They just want a machine that does what they need it to do.
All things being equal Core-i7 for $999 is better than C2D for $999, but all things aren't equal. The MB/MBPs tend to be thinner, having larger batteries yet weight considerably less, have superior construction, have tech support that promotes consumer confidence, and use an OS that consumers tend to find friendlier.
Before we start comparing Dell, Sony and HP to Macs why don't we first compare a $999 Core-i7 Dell, Sony or HP with a more expensive Core-i7 PC from the same vendor. Case in point, Sony Viao Z w/ Core i5. Starts at $1899. Want Blu-ray, add 500 (yet a full Blu-ray player for your HDTV is under $100). Want Core-i7, that's $150 more (yet it's the same exact socket as Core-i5 and only costs $75 more according to Intel's per/1000 unit price list).
I thought to myself "well Apple's not doing badly with the Core i3 and the GPU switching tech" and then it dawned on me that I was thinking about the MBP 13" specs.
The 13" MBP is C2D with Nvidia 320M, which is was the right way to go this time when you look at the specs for the Core-i3. Next time, though, they'll have to move to Core-i, but I suspect it will be Core-i5 and require a major revision.
Any other scenario wouldn't make sense with Apple's design philosophy. Cost isn't the issue when people happily pay $2,000+ for a MacBook Pro. Apple would need a particular advantage over Intel, which AMD does not offer right now. Acquiring even standard AMD processors for low end machines would mean a significant performance per watt advantage over Intel to be the best machine.
I'm not understanding your point. It's not that Apple can't offer a cheaper system and/or a system that makes less profit, it's that they don't have to because they offer things other vendors can't touch which sets them apart from the rest.
The 13" MBP is C2D with Nvidia 320M, which is was the right way to go this time when you look at the specs for the Core-i3. Next time, though, they'll have to move to Core-i, but I suspect it will be Core-i5 and require a major revision.
How this ALL ties into AMD is this.
The MBP are more either more expensive than they need to be or spec'd lower than they need to be because adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics.
Now granted discrete graphics have always been preferrable to IGP but I wonder if that will be the case going forward as we move from 32nm process and down (within the context of portable computing)
I'm surprised that everyone is looking at the AMD option so narrowly. I'd imagine Apple would go for a major license investment and custom build x64 processors with AMD for certain machines. I would imagine this is what would be required for a well designed touch iMac or Mac Mini. A custom x64 would also be really nice for a future version of OSX redesigned with touch in mind. That would be they only way AMD could match Apple's design philosophy of building the best computing machines out there.
Any other scenario wouldn't make sense with Apple's design philosophy. Cost isn't the issue when people happily pay $2,000+ for a MacBook Pro. Apple would need a particular advantage over Intel, which AMD does not offer right now. Acquiring even standard AMD processors for low end machines would mean a significant performance per watt advantage over Intel to be the best machine.
AMD may be able to offer some custom stuff for Apple depending on how much of Apple's business they'd get in on. I'd love to have further confirmation that AMD and Apple are having advanced discussion.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations. As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
In 2012 I'd like to see.
- 5x7 iPad model for $349
- 9.7 iPad models starting at $499 with Dual Core ARM based processing
- Mac mini Fusion - $499
- Macbook Fusion - $799
That brings Apple in at every price point.Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
How this ALL ties into AMD is this.
The MBP are more either more expensive than they need to be or spec'd lower than they need to be because adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics.
Now granted discrete graphics have always been preferrable to IGP but I wonder if that will be the case going forward as we move from 32nm process and down (within the context of portable computing)
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs. Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations. As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
It remains to be seen how Bulldozer's duoply 128-bit units function. I think for Apple it would be trivial to support both depending on how much of Clang/LLVM Apple's able to integrate into Xcode 4.x and on. I'm pretty confident that both AMD and Intel will be strong here. I'm betting that Wolfram is pretty excited about what 2011 is going to bring for serious number crunching.
Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs. Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
Intel's lower cost items perform almost unacceptably low in graphics. Basically you get a great CPU and so so GPU. Now I'm still not sold on OpenCL (primarly because i've not seen one decent demo that shows me the promise of GPGPU computing) but i've got to think that we are on the cusp of seeing the GPU finally become a peer processing unit for general users. If that's the case AMD closes the gap with Intel in performance (due to superior GPU) and we know they'll come in cheaper overall in price. Performance/Watt though is going to be very important.
I agree with you. I'd love to see Fusion on lower end space constrained product and Intel on the midrange and perhaps both on the high end.
It behooves us all to have two CPU vendors that can push X86 forward since PPC is done as a high volume desktop platform.
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.
Not in multithreaded situations.
Clock speeds and price also play a part.
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.
Melgross;
I see that you have refused to respond to my legitimate questions before; in case you missed them, here is the link:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=99
These are not rhetorical questions, and warrant real answers based on your claims.
If there is no response, I guess we will have to take that your writings in this thread are largely baseless and simply come from your personal misconceptions.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Yes, i already said Bulldozer version of Fusion will compete with IvyBridge, not SandyBridge. Which makes the matter worse. And by AMD's track record, they have been missing target deadline all the time.
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
As someone point out. Apple doesn't need to lower price to Stay competitive. As a business model, Apple are like LV and Gucci. Did you ever see LV and Gucci goes on Sale? Lower Price Point? These are premium brand. Smaller Mid Class Brand may make 10 - 20 times the volume and revenue, but they still make LESS TOTAL profits then Premium brand.
Just hopped on Best Buy
Dell
Sony
HP
They all have $999 units with Core i5 and some i7 models. 4GB of RAM and 500GB HDD on the avg.
The problem are not within the component price. The highest cost of BOM inside all Macbook Pro and iMac is actually aluminum. Did you see ANY Price Range of Laptop out there build with a Single Block of Aluminum? Are there any laptop that gives you a feeling this thing is not going to break easily, because it is METAL!. Not Plastic.
I think all analyst were too busy with iPhone sales and iPad. Has no one realize the impact of Aluminium price risen by more then 50% in one years time?? Aluminium was a more expensive material to start with, and its price has only gone up. The unibody manufacturing process cost has also gone up.The Fixed Cost of MBP are much higher then other Laptop to Start with. That is why MBP cant get much lower price. And using AMD fusion wont save you $100 dollars.
For Lower Cost Computer, that is where Apple A4 ( ARM ) and iPad comes into play.
adding two GPU to a computer IMO is a waste. If Intel's IGP graphics were decent then there would be no need to expend the finances and engineering resources on adding in discrete graphics
Again as stated before. Two GPU in a computer is now an ideal way to go forward. Because of the way GPU works and designed, unless there is a major breakthrough you can never get a Powerful GPU to acceptable Idle power. You need a GPU for Low power ( GPU inside CPU ) and a discrete GPU for GPGPU usage and Heavy Graphics Lifting. Now it is not important if the GPU inside CPU is powerful or not ( In apple preparative ), they want the GPU inside CPU to be very power efficient. And Intel is doing a great job on this end.
Forgot to mention another point, Apple will still need to work with Intel on Lightpeak. And there are Intel software engineers on LLVM.
Yes, i already said Bulldozer version of Fusion will compete with IvyBridge, not SandyBridge. Which makes the matter worse.
Ivy Bridge will probably neutralize AMD's core count advantage unless Llano's successor ups its core counts. Then again they'll probably still be behind in GPU.
Bulldozer will support AVX, FMA4, XOP & CVT16. AMD has never lacked for supporting the SIMD stuff. Intel's lead is basically in process technology, power and fab capability with strength in Integer.
Intels strengths are there but that is often over stated. AMD chips still do pretty good in testing / benchmarking. Yes that depends upon the benchmark but what is notable here is that where AMD really fails in the benchmarks would make little difference to Apple as they have OpenCL to make up the difference.
Bulldozer, as you say before, should rectify the Integer performance and if their GPU technology continues to evolve nicely they won't have to worry about FPU performance.
Actually it will be interesting to see how Bulldozer actually behaves on real code. I actually see AMD as really innovating here. Intel has SMT but that is really an old concept. Further Bulldozer ought to allow for a lot more cores on a die or lower overall power.
Apple would be smart (IMO of course) to bring in AMD on the low end in 2011 and remain competive.
Actually I don't think Apple gives a crap about where the AMD chips go. They need to knock heads with respect to NVidia and Intel. Intels behavior is absolutely counter productive considering the direction Apple wants to go. Integrating a GPU onto the CPU package is a bit to early in my estimation even if they had decent GPU?'s to integrate. They don't of course so Intel is really thumbing its noise at its customers by not fulfilling their needs.
$999 for the Macbook isn't worth it. I think it's a $899 at best laptop.
I don't know about that. As long as they sell Apple has little to worry about. Besides they certainly are a better value than many of the low cost machines they compete with.
In 2012 I'd like to see.
Why 2012? Much of what you and I want can be had this year or early next.
I was hoping for dual core in the current machine but sadly it isn't there and even worst there is not enough memory (RAM) in the iPad to even bother with dual core.
I believe Apple could do a much better job with other AMD hardware. AMD/ATIs integrated GPU's are really just the nuts as they don't have to deal with RAM traffic, but more so I believe they have an integrated chip that actually has its own video memory. It might be a task fitting all this into a mini but it certainly would make for a nice machine.
In any event what I' getting at is that the Mini needs another massive boost in performance to keep the gulf between it and the iMac's reasonable. I don't see fusion filling that roll right away.
That might actually work as long as there isn't a performance regression.
That brings Apple in at every price point.
I'm more concerned about performance points than price points. While it would be nice to see an entry level Mini that sports good performance it isn't as important as having some sort of well performing machine at a reasonable price point. This brings up the ole X Mac of the past.
That is Apple needs to offer something bigger than a compact box that allows for very good performance at reasonable prices. AMD hardware can give Apple a performance advantage in a low cost machine, it just won't be in a compact box.
Dave
I don't believe Bulldozer is fully compliant to the final AVX spec, partially due to time/design constraints on AMD's part since Bulldozer was originally designed for their defunct SSE5 and partially because Intel was still tweaking the AVX spec as Sandy Bridge's design evolved so AVX was finalized late. This will probably require additional effort on the part of Apple in the compiler and software developers in general to support the different implementations.
LLVM could be a big win for Apple here. Byte code could be compiled at run time to optimize for the hardware the code is running on.
As well, Bulldozer's AVX implementation will probably be slower than Sandy Bridge's because Bulldozer does not have native 256-bit execution units and instead requires combining the 2 128-bit units in each module (2 cores). Sandy Bridge has multiple 256-bit execution units per core.
Do You really think that Apple cares? Really look at the processor they use now in the majority of their hardware. We aren't talking Intels top of the line hardware here. Sure Apple will likely support Sandy Bridge in their high end hardware, but that leaves a lot of open space in the lower end of the hardware lineup. Further Apple is loosing customer because of glaring gaps in their hardware lineup, Bulldozer or other AMD hardware could offer Apple a way to fill those gaps. Mots importantly a way to fill those gaps with economical systems with good GPU choices.
Why would Apple need to move to AMD in order to offer models with lower price points? If Apple doesn't want to reduce prices by reducing their profit margins on existing models and components, Intel also offers a variety of lower-end components that Apple could use in cheaper models.
The future doesn't look bright with Intel integrating crap GPU's into their CPU's. Besides Intels low end simply can't compete with AMD's current generation hardware.
I really hope Apple isn't considering moving to AMD simply to eliminate the need for discrete GPUs. On die IGPs are going to get faster but they are not going to outperform discrete GPUs. The transistor, heat, and power budget of on die IGP are always going to be constrained compared to discrete GPUs so an IGP won't truly replace mid-high end discrete GPUs.
This may be very true today but the landscape is changing very quickly. With the move to 20nm or so there will be lots of room on a chip to keep the performance leading edge. At least compared to middle of the road GPU's. High end Discrete GPU's will just keep getting better but how many Apple products use those today?
Fusion is a good reason to improve 13" MacBook Pros where you are space constrained but not to waste the additional thermal headroom that the larger 15" and 17" form factors afford to put in more powerful discrete GPUs.
I actually believe that Apple could have produced a better 13" MacBook Pro with AMD parts today. Mainly because of the way system components are distributed around the the chips in AMD systems. You might loose a little bit in battery life but performance could very well be equal of better than Core 2. Of course there are all the depends that go with such statements.
The other thing people seem to mis in this discussion is that Apple has had a lot of experience with AMD's bus systems using Hyper Transport in Power Macs. Plus the bus has ben adopted by a number of other big name systems builders. AMD is very much quality hardware and for a long time had the best bus going. I've seen others in this thread dismiss AMD as a second tier supplier but that is garbage. They have in many ways been responsible for Apples PPC success.
Dave