Via makes crappy cpu's. they can't compete, and it's not certain they will be allowed to make current models.
This is getting pretty silly. \
VIA is practically the company that defined the low power x86 compatible CPU to begin with, by virtue of their coming to own IDT's Centaur division and whatever was left of Cyrix when National Semiconductor got done with them.
VIA's CPUs were focusing on low power before Intel ever had any intention of creating the Atom CPU. Some are even part of solutions that are completely passively cooled--including the chipset--long before Intel had developed the NM10. VIA's CPUs also have some unique features, including their longstanding "Padlock" hardware security engine. You really ought to see some of their pico-ITX (and smaller!) motherboards. Yes, some of them are smaller than the logic boards Apple is designing today.
While I cannot speak for VIA, I don't know that they really care about having a bleeding edge processor to compete with Intel. They are diversified and have a huge market in terms of supporting devices (USB, Firewire, Audio, SATA, networking) for use in computers. And many of them work perfectly well...
With Apple putting so much emphasis on battery life for all the portable devices, I have a really hard time believing they're going to switch to AMD anytime soon. Their mobile chips power consumption is about twice as bad as a comparable Intel chip. Sorry, but I don't buy into that rumor for a change.
With Apple putting so much emphasis on battery life for all the portable devices, I have a really hard time believing they're going to switch to AMD anytime soon. Their mobile chips power consumption is about twice as bad as a comparable Intel chip. Sorry, but I don't buy into that rumor for a change.
What does "anytime soon mean" please provide some context. Are we talking about 3 months, 6 months a year?
I don't think anyone is going to buy into Apple using AMD processors that are available now and AMD is most likely not in Cupertino talking about the current processors which Apple couldn't use anyways because it'd take 6 months at last to design, test and QA anything from AMD in the first place.
So we need to "skate to where the puck is going to be" and that means we need to be looking at what AMD will be offering in 1H 2010 and that is going to be Llano which is their first Fusion APU.
It'll be 32nm and integrate a capable GPU right in the same silicon with improved power Management features. I think AMD is quoting TDP of rough 20 -59 watts TDP (source)
So let's see the impact here. Take the 2.53 Mac mini with Nvidia 9400M graphics. Here's a list of TDP for various CPU and a couple GPU
The 2.53Ghz C2D processor would be roughly
25W
The Nvidia 9400M would be roughly
12W
So we're approaching 40 Watts TDP just for the CPU and GPU/N+S Bridge for a dual core processor.
Llano will likely come in Dual Core, Triple Core and Quad Core. Which is why their TDP range goes from 20 Watts to almost 60 (which is likely the Quad core).
So it's easy to see "how" the 2011 AMD APU fits into Macs and should not yield much of an impact on battery life as compared to what's in the Macbook line right now.
Llano will likely come in Dual Core, Triple Core and Quad Core. Which is why their TDP range goes from 20 Watts to almost 60 (which is likely the Quad core).
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Marketing be damned I'd gladly take a Quad 2Ghz Fusion APU with a solid GPU. We haven't seen the fruits of OpenCL yet but it's coming.
I just downloaded the Siggraph OpenCL preso from AMD's Justin Hensley Ph.D
A Khronos PDF on OpenCL and surprisingly and PDF from AMD, Intel & Nvidia on OpenCL.
OpenCL 2.0 is supposedly due in 2012 with 1.1 being the next intermediary step if it's not already here.
We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics.
We're rapidly approaching a new era in which consumers will have to stop thinking about the CPU as the "Central" processing unit. We now have 48-core GPU which is a 3x improvement over the Nvidia 9400M and in a couple of years we'll likely be at 128 cores for a midrange computer.
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's. And frankly, so far AMD doesn't exactly have a great track record for engineering power efficient CPUs... so H1 2011 may still be too optimistic.
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's. And frankly, so far AMD doesn't exactly have a great track record for engineering power efficient CPUs... so H1 2011 may still be too optimistic.
Based on your extensive knowledge of microarchitectures or just your "hunch" ?
Yes Sandy Bridge is coming with a new core and IGP but that IGP is still going to be a separate piece of silicon and few expect it to be of the same class of Llano GPU.
So the question isn't really about battery power (though that's important) but how Apple intends to leverage the GPU with OS X and OpenCL/OpenGL and how they plan to leverage Grand Central Dispatch as more Macs go beyond Dual Core.
No need to go ad hominem. Obviously I'm not an engineer and AMD may very well surprise the industry, like they have before. It's certainly not a bad idea for Apple to keep their options open, I'd just be rather surprised if AMD managed to come out with something as significantly better as Intel's future solution as you make it sound like. Or do you know exactly, what Intel has up its sleeve in the next 24 months? Because I don't.
No need to go ad hominem. Obviously I'm not an engineer and AMD may very well surprise the industry, like they have before. It's certainly not a bad idea for Apple to keep their options open, I'd just be rather surprised if AMD managed to come out with something as significantly better as Intel's future solution as you make it sound like. Or do you know exactly, what Intel has up its sleeve in the next 24 months? Because I don't.
Agreed my apologies.
Guess i'm just rooting for the underdog here. Intel got the memo about Power/Watt and I hope AMD has been working really hard on the same. Apparently Fusion is sampling right now and so the next several months should deliver more insight as to how well they are able to reduce power consumption.
I'm amazed at how much traction this story has gotten.
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's.
Quad-core mobile Sandy Bridge is still 45 W, although this time there will be an integrated GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Yes Sandy Bridge is coming with a new core and IGP but that IGP is still going to be a separate piece of silicon and few expect it to be of the same class of Llano GPU.
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.
Also for the pro Sumer that is heavy into music, logic, cubase, nuendo and editors, all who need strong FPU AND CPU coudnt Apple start building workstations with 12 cores for cheaper, say from $999 for 4 cores up to $1499? These would also sell we'l with gamers which last I read is bigger than music and movies combined and there are certainly numerous bands, composers, editors that dont need a server class desktop. The iMacs can remain as is, for the consumer, iWork, iLife, ms office crowd since they offer very little in ways of upgrading. I bet you would see a lot of desktops fly off the shelfs with the artist knowing he/she is Viking to get 24 tracks with fx plug INS samplers (orchestra), synced with Reason/Live, etc.
I don't think this is a rumor in the strict sense. To me it seems more like ideas/discussions making rounds in several internet sites. Here is an example.
How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
Forget price. Too many people here are talking price. Apple's machines cost more for various reasons. The cost of the cu is just one of them The most Apple could do would be to cut 10% off the price with a significantly cheaper chip. Would that be worth it? I don't think so.
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.
The Tegra is a good chip, but no better than anything else in its class.
At any rate, we're not talking about phone ARM chips, but x86 chips.
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.
Sorry, but I'm not always home, and when a thread reaches a certain size, it takes too much time to read all the posts made after I left, so I don't always get to many. I didn't see your response. I was debating whether to join this one in progress. I never leave a thread because I have no reply, though rarely, someone gets too frantic, and it doesn't pay to continue.
The reason why Intel and AMD chips aren't exactly the same is because they are different companies, and have their own designs. Often Intel does something that AMD does not, and AMD does something that Intel does not. Often (usually) because of Intel's position in the market, developers will support Intel's work, but not AMD's. Intel's SSE instructions vs AMD's attempts to push their own is a good case in point. I'm not going to get into a detailed argument with you here. You can find the performance results on many sites including Ars Technica, ad Anandtech, where they also point out the architectural differences between the two companies designs. If you're an "expert" in his area you should know of these differences. Its pretty obvious that both companies are on different trajectories, or we wouldn't be discussing it. Nor would anyone else. The chips would be exactly the same, and they would perform exactly the same.
What you seem to be saying is that because they are both using x86, they are the same. They are not.
One point I made in that post is well known. Though you (or someone) stated that Nvidia could make x86 chips, I pointed out that they have no license. You didn't mention that. Via is not known for hi performance chips. Whether they could make x86 chips now that would matter is debatable. I don;t know if they have a license for Intel's new designs as AMD does.
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.
Larrabee is an experiment for Intel. It doesn't invalidate their cpu roadmap. Like ATv for Apple, it doesn't detract from their actual business. Perhaps Larrabee will be a success, perhaps not. It's not relevant.
Apple has shown that for their mobile computers, they have a workable, indeed, an elegant way around Intel's built-in graphics. Thats not a problem.
For their desktop machines, there's no problem at all. Except for the Mini (so far), they've abandoned mobile chips and their chipsets.
I don't care about "other manufacturers". I care about what Apple will be doing. Other manufacturers use Windows. Should Apple do that because "other manufacturers" are using it?
VIA is practically the company that defined the low power x86 compatible CPU to begin with, by virtue of their coming to own IDT's Centaur division and whatever was left of Cyrix when National Semiconductor got done with them.
VIA's CPUs were focusing on low power before Intel ever had any intention of creating the Atom CPU. Some are even part of solutions that are completely passively cooled--including the chipset--long before Intel had developed the NM10. VIA's CPUs also have some unique features, including their longstanding "Padlock" hardware security engine. You really ought to see some of their pico-ITX (and smaller!) motherboards. Yes, some of them are smaller than the logic boards Apple is designing today.
While I cannot speak for VIA, I don't know that they really care about having a bleeding edge processor to compete with Intel. They are diversified and have a huge market in terms of supporting devices (USB, Firewire, Audio, SATA, networking) for use in computers. And many of them work perfectly well...
And exactly which VIA cpu competes with the i3, i5, or i7. And which chips compete with the Xeons Apple uses?
The only area could be handheld mobile devices, in which category I'm including the iPad.
In what way would they be able to present an argument for Apple to switch anything to them? That's what matters.
In your post, you are forgetting that we have to see some reason why Apple would want to use their product.
While I was an early supporter for Apple to use the Atom, as some here might remember, as Apple has shown success with ARM, I now no longer see Atom, or any of its derivatives from VIA or anywhere else, to be a viable option.
With Apple buying one Chip design firm, and rumors they're recently bought another (with some evidence that the A4 may have been at least partly developed by them), why would they move to yet another company for any of their mobile chips, which would be the only conceivable area in which VIA could hope to have a product for?
The chip industry is like a musician. They're only as good as their current recording.
Comments
Via makes crappy cpu's. they can't compete, and it's not certain they will be allowed to make current models.
This is getting pretty silly.
VIA is practically the company that defined the low power x86 compatible CPU to begin with, by virtue of their coming to own IDT's Centaur division and whatever was left of Cyrix when National Semiconductor got done with them.
VIA's CPUs were focusing on low power before Intel ever had any intention of creating the Atom CPU. Some are even part of solutions that are completely passively cooled--including the chipset--long before Intel had developed the NM10. VIA's CPUs also have some unique features, including their longstanding "Padlock" hardware security engine. You really ought to see some of their pico-ITX (and smaller!) motherboards. Yes, some of them are smaller than the logic boards Apple is designing today.
While I cannot speak for VIA, I don't know that they really care about having a bleeding edge processor to compete with Intel. They are diversified and have a huge market in terms of supporting devices (USB, Firewire, Audio, SATA, networking) for use in computers. And many of them work perfectly well...
With Apple putting so much emphasis on battery life for all the portable devices, I have a really hard time believing they're going to switch to AMD anytime soon. Their mobile chips power consumption is about twice as bad as a comparable Intel chip. Sorry, but I don't buy into that rumor for a change.
What does "anytime soon mean" please provide some context. Are we talking about 3 months, 6 months a year?
I don't think anyone is going to buy into Apple using AMD processors that are available now and AMD is most likely not in Cupertino talking about the current processors which Apple couldn't use anyways because it'd take 6 months at last to design, test and QA anything from AMD in the first place.
So we need to "skate to where the puck is going to be" and that means we need to be looking at what AMD will be offering in 1H 2010 and that is going to be Llano which is their first Fusion APU.
It'll be 32nm and integrate a capable GPU right in the same silicon with improved power Management features. I think AMD is quoting TDP of rough 20 -59 watts TDP (source)
So let's see the impact here. Take the 2.53 Mac mini with Nvidia 9400M graphics. Here's a list of TDP for various CPU and a couple GPU
The 2.53Ghz C2D processor would be roughly
25W
The Nvidia 9400M would be roughly
12W
So we're approaching 40 Watts TDP just for the CPU and GPU/N+S Bridge for a dual core processor.
Llano will likely come in Dual Core, Triple Core and Quad Core. Which is why their TDP range goes from 20 Watts to almost 60 (which is likely the Quad core).
So it's easy to see "how" the 2011 AMD APU fits into Macs and should not yield much of an impact on battery life as compared to what's in the Macbook line right now.
Llano will likely come in Dual Core, Triple Core and Quad Core. Which is why their TDP range goes from 20 Watts to almost 60 (which is likely the Quad core).
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Marketing be damned I'd gladly take a Quad 2Ghz Fusion APU with a solid GPU. We haven't seen the fruits of OpenCL yet but it's coming.
I just downloaded the Siggraph OpenCL preso from AMD's Justin Hensley Ph.D
A Khronos PDF on OpenCL and surprisingly and PDF from AMD, Intel & Nvidia on OpenCL.
OpenCL 2.0 is supposedly due in 2012 with 1.1 being the next intermediary step if it's not already here.
This is interesting as well.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...i5-upgrade.ars
I kind of agree with Jobs' statement
We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics.
We're rapidly approaching a new era in which consumers will have to stop thinking about the CPU as the "Central" processing unit. We now have 48-core GPU which is a 3x improvement over the Nvidia 9400M and in a couple of years we'll likely be at 128 cores for a midrange computer.
Quad-core goes to as low as 30 W but that'll probably be a low clock speed like their 1.6 GHz 25 W mobile Champlain coming soon. There's also dual-core at 30 W.
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's. And frankly, so far AMD doesn't exactly have a great track record for engineering power efficient CPUs... so H1 2011 may still be too optimistic.
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's. And frankly, so far AMD doesn't exactly have a great track record for engineering power efficient CPUs... so H1 2011 may still be too optimistic.
Based on your extensive knowledge of microarchitectures or just your "hunch" ?
Yes Sandy Bridge is coming with a new core and IGP but that IGP is still going to be a separate piece of silicon and few expect it to be of the same class of Llano GPU.
So the question isn't really about battery power (though that's important) but how Apple intends to leverage the GPU with OS X and OpenCL/OpenGL and how they plan to leverage Grand Central Dispatch as more Macs go beyond Dual Core.
No need to go ad hominem. Obviously I'm not an engineer and AMD may very well surprise the industry, like they have before. It's certainly not a bad idea for Apple to keep their options open, I'd just be rather surprised if AMD managed to come out with something as significantly better as Intel's future solution as you make it sound like. Or do you know exactly, what Intel has up its sleeve in the next 24 months? Because I don't.
Agreed my apologies.
Guess i'm just rooting for the underdog here. Intel got the memo about Power/Watt and I hope AMD has been working really hard on the same. Apparently Fusion is sampling right now and so the next several months should deliver more insight as to how well they are able to reduce power consumption.
I'm amazed at how much traction this story has gotten.
Even Jon Peddie and Nathan Brookwood have chimed in
Of course AMDs future products will have a better TDP, but so will Intel's.
Quad-core mobile Sandy Bridge is still 45 W, although this time there will be an integrated GPU.
Yes Sandy Bridge is coming with a new core and IGP but that IGP is still going to be a separate piece of silicon and few expect it to be of the same class of Llano GPU.
It's on-die.
Quad-core mobile Sandy Bridge is still 45 W, although this time there will be an integrated GPU.
It's on-die.
Yes I was thinking about Nehalem's package.
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.
Also for the pro Sumer that is heavy into music, logic, cubase, nuendo and editors, all who need strong FPU AND CPU coudnt Apple start building workstations with 12 cores for cheaper, say from $999 for 4 cores up to $1499? These would also sell we'l with gamers which last I read is bigger than music and movies combined and there are certainly numerous bands, composers, editors that dont need a server class desktop. The iMacs can remain as is, for the consumer, iWork, iLife, ms office crowd since they offer very little in ways of upgrading. I bet you would see a lot of desktops fly off the shelfs with the artist knowing he/she is Viking to get 24 tracks with fx plug INS samplers (orchestra), synced with Reason/Live, etc.
Since Apple taking control, all those problem i mentioned will instantly zeroed out. Not to mention it gets Global Foundries controlling Vote.
AMD only cost 7 - 8 billion to buy out.
The latest rumors about Apple may acquire AMD. If that is the case it will all make MUCH more sense.
Since Apple taking control, all those problem i mentioned will instantly zeroed out. Not to mention it gets Global Foundries controlling Vote.
AMD only cost 7 - 8 billion to buy out.
Who's saying this? Do you have a link? Not that I'm doubting it but using AMD processors and GPU is one thing..buying them is totally another.
Though I wouldn't rule out Apple making a Billion dollar acquisition at some time during my life.
Who's saying this? Do you have a link?
I don't think this is a rumor in the strict sense. To me it seems more like ideas/discussions making rounds in several internet sites. Here is an example.
Not in multithreaded situations.
Clock speeds and price also play a part.
How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
Forget price. Too many people here are talking price. Apple's machines cost more for various reasons. The cost of the cu is just one of them The most Apple could do would be to cut 10% off the price with a significantly cheaper chip. Would that be worth it? I don't think so.
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.
The Tegra is a good chip, but no better than anything else in its class.
At any rate, we're not talking about phone ARM chips, but x86 chips.
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.
Sorry, but I'm not always home, and when a thread reaches a certain size, it takes too much time to read all the posts made after I left, so I don't always get to many. I didn't see your response. I was debating whether to join this one in progress. I never leave a thread because I have no reply, though rarely, someone gets too frantic, and it doesn't pay to continue.
The reason why Intel and AMD chips aren't exactly the same is because they are different companies, and have their own designs. Often Intel does something that AMD does not, and AMD does something that Intel does not. Often (usually) because of Intel's position in the market, developers will support Intel's work, but not AMD's. Intel's SSE instructions vs AMD's attempts to push their own is a good case in point. I'm not going to get into a detailed argument with you here. You can find the performance results on many sites including Ars Technica, ad Anandtech, where they also point out the architectural differences between the two companies designs. If you're an "expert" in his area you should know of these differences. Its pretty obvious that both companies are on different trajectories, or we wouldn't be discussing it. Nor would anyone else. The chips would be exactly the same, and they would perform exactly the same.
What you seem to be saying is that because they are both using x86, they are the same. They are not.
One point I made in that post is well known. Though you (or someone) stated that Nvidia could make x86 chips, I pointed out that they have no license. You didn't mention that. Via is not known for hi performance chips. Whether they could make x86 chips now that would matter is debatable. I don;t know if they have a license for Intel's new designs as AMD does.
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.
Larrabee is an experiment for Intel. It doesn't invalidate their cpu roadmap. Like ATv for Apple, it doesn't detract from their actual business. Perhaps Larrabee will be a success, perhaps not. It's not relevant.
Apple has shown that for their mobile computers, they have a workable, indeed, an elegant way around Intel's built-in graphics. Thats not a problem.
For their desktop machines, there's no problem at all. Except for the Mini (so far), they've abandoned mobile chips and their chipsets.
I don't care about "other manufacturers". I care about what Apple will be doing. Other manufacturers use Windows. Should Apple do that because "other manufacturers" are using it?
This is getting pretty silly.
VIA is practically the company that defined the low power x86 compatible CPU to begin with, by virtue of their coming to own IDT's Centaur division and whatever was left of Cyrix when National Semiconductor got done with them.
VIA's CPUs were focusing on low power before Intel ever had any intention of creating the Atom CPU. Some are even part of solutions that are completely passively cooled--including the chipset--long before Intel had developed the NM10. VIA's CPUs also have some unique features, including their longstanding "Padlock" hardware security engine. You really ought to see some of their pico-ITX (and smaller!) motherboards. Yes, some of them are smaller than the logic boards Apple is designing today.
While I cannot speak for VIA, I don't know that they really care about having a bleeding edge processor to compete with Intel. They are diversified and have a huge market in terms of supporting devices (USB, Firewire, Audio, SATA, networking) for use in computers. And many of them work perfectly well...
And exactly which VIA cpu competes with the i3, i5, or i7. And which chips compete with the Xeons Apple uses?
The only area could be handheld mobile devices, in which category I'm including the iPad.
In what way would they be able to present an argument for Apple to switch anything to them? That's what matters.
In your post, you are forgetting that we have to see some reason why Apple would want to use their product.
While I was an early supporter for Apple to use the Atom, as some here might remember, as Apple has shown success with ARM, I now no longer see Atom, or any of its derivatives from VIA or anywhere else, to be a viable option.
With Apple buying one Chip design firm, and rumors they're recently bought another (with some evidence that the A4 may have been at least partly developed by them), why would they move to yet another company for any of their mobile chips, which would be the only conceivable area in which VIA could hope to have a product for?
The chip industry is like a musician. They're only as good as their current recording.