Melgross doesn't have respect for people running AMD? Who cares what he thinks?
This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.
Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.
*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.
So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.
Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.
I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...
I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.
Personally I'm hoping Apple soon stops using the Core 2 Duo in the iMac and goes with Clarkdale Core i5 (2 cores, 4 threads, desktop CPU) in their low end models while retaining the Lynnfield Core i7 (4 cores, 8 threads, desktop CPU) in the high end models. I'm also looking for 5xxx series Radeon graphics.
Me too. Let's hold our breath and see if it happens?
Yes Apple likes to charge a premium and so does Intel which means complaints about Apple pricing will continue to exist because neither Apple nor Intel are going to give their product away for nothing.
AMD is your best bet for lower end Mac mini, Macbook hardware that performs acceptably.
I think AMD would be the perfect solution for the price sensitive Mac user.
Don't see it happening.
They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?
They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.
After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.
Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'
They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?
They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.
After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.
Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'
The AMD 'talks' are interesting at the least.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Until recently Apple was using Mobile Intel processors in the iMac and those never really get dirt cheap. BTO makes sense for those high end configs. The 27" iMacs offer something no other vendor can offer right now and that's a higher than HD native resolution. The screen alone is worth over a $1000. Integrated graphics aren't an Apple phenomenon it's an industry wide trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
When did they ever?
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I feel the same about expensive products in all categories. I wish they were cheaper but by and large after using most of them i realize why the extra money was requested. Expensive products should go the extra mile and Apple does indeed go the extra mile which is why their customer satisfaction is top of the charts.
Melgross doesn't have respect for people running AMD? Who cares what he thinks?
This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.
Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.
*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.
So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.
Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.
I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...
I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That's a dumb argument. If your argument were correct, Apple would have done it years ago. Why wait so long?
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
Not gonna happen. Apple will use its purchasing power to get lower prices. The best way to do it would be to implement AMD chips across all its computers.
This has not been consistent with Apple past dealings with suppliers. They never put their eggs in one basket, and constantly pit suppliers against each other to get the best deals.
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
+1
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
In case you haven't realized it, MBP prices have dropped from January 2009 to the current models. Also you are getting more for the same price that you were getting just last week. I bought my MBP last year and the price is less than when I got it, even with a education discount--go figure
If you are not happy with Apple prices you can either get a refurb or go to a used PC
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
+1
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
A Sandy Bridge core will be significantly better than a Llano core, but the Sandy Bridge GPU looks to be far behind the Llano GPU (if the rumors are true). CPU-wise, Sandy Bridge will easily beat Llano with equivalent core counts. But what about a TDP and price area where 2-core Sandy Bridge competes with 4-core Llano? There will be a similar one in the 25/35 W space where 25/35 W 4-core Champlain goes against 35 W 2-core Arrandale. Coincidentally, that space is right where the MacBook Pro is.
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
The other point I wanted to make was that this is probably a *good* sign for Open CL.
There hasn't been much talk and precious little in the the way of apps that utilize this technology. It seems like Apple are serious about OCL and are going to reject cpu/gpu combos that do not support this. Intel on the other hand seem to be more interested in a world where computing is done mostly on the cpu. They only seem to produce gpus that are 'good enough' for watching video and little else. GPGPU looks like something that is anathema to their future.
People seem to be assuming that the AMD chips would be going into the iMacs. Why? The AppleTV and Mini seem like much more likely spots to place AMD/ATI in the near future. The lower CPU performance wouldn't be an issue and the better graphics would be especially helpful with the AppleTV (where CPU really isn't an issue). They would be able to cut prices while keeping their high margins.
If the relationship worked out well and Bulldozer brings AMD back into a competitive position then they can expand the relationship. Otherwise, they at least improve the bargaining position they have with Intel.
I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).
I read your post. Nice.
I think, like you allude, that AMD in Macs will go were Apple rely on integrated graphics. MacBooks, MBP (13"), MBAs, and minis.
Where Apple use dedicated graphics, Intel seem to make more sense.
This will be a good financial move for Apple and will come at very little cost to the consumer. It's the right thing to do. The only downside is it will give Apple haters some ammo.
Apple might be moving away from the Premium pricing model and heading down the iPad road . . .
I would expect that will be the case. Their new lines, the iPod, iPhone and iPad are MUCH more successful than their old computer lines. They are now a huge company, and they have three categories in which they are market leaders instead of also-rans.
A change in basic architecture and a change in focus seem aligned.
Comments
This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.
Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.
*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.
So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.
Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.
I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...
I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Personally I'm hoping Apple soon stops using the Core 2 Duo in the iMac and goes with Clarkdale Core i5 (2 cores, 4 threads, desktop CPU) in their low end models while retaining the Lynnfield Core i7 (4 cores, 8 threads, desktop CPU) in the high end models. I'm also looking for 5xxx series Radeon graphics.
Me too. Let's hold our breath and see if it happens?
Lemon Bon Bon.
AMD is your best bet for lower end Mac mini, Macbook hardware that performs acceptably.
I think AMD would be the perfect solution for the price sensitive Mac user.
Don't see it happening.
They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?
They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.
After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.
Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'
The AMD 'talks' are interesting at the least.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple pricing will continue to exist because neither Apple nor Intel are going to give their product away for nothing.
When did they ever?
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Don't see it happening.
They have the option of passing on the price savings from the dirt cheap Core2duo cpus they use now. Do they?
They've had the chance to put i7 (cheap) desktop cpus in the top two 'high end' iMacs. Did they? No. BTO.
They had the chance to put the (very cheap) i5 in their 'lower end' iMacs. Did they? No.
After the last side grade, not offering affordable quads across the board was a slap in the face.
Apple aren't proud about using integrated crappics. They used to boast in the PPC days that the Mac Mini had a dedicated gpu blah, blah...and how ICrappics had to share memory...blah, blah. 'Yeh, Apple.'
The AMD 'talks' are interesting at the least.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Until recently Apple was using Mobile Intel processors in the iMac and those never really get dirt cheap. BTO makes sense for those high end configs. The 27" iMacs offer something no other vendor can offer right now and that's a higher than HD native resolution. The screen alone is worth over a $1000. Integrated graphics aren't an Apple phenomenon it's an industry wide trend.
When did they ever?
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I feel the same about expensive products in all categories. I wish they were cheaper but by and large after using most of them i realize why the extra money was requested. Expensive products should go the extra mile and Apple does indeed go the extra mile which is why their customer satisfaction is top of the charts.
Melgross doesn't have respect for people running AMD? Who cares what he thinks?
This is the same Apple that allowed M$ to buy 100 Million worth of 'stock', allowed Intel chips into their machines and priced their machines even higher.
Don't expect Apple using AMD chips to make machines cheaper. Apple will pocket the difference and still claim to be a premium brand...and add to the 40 Billion cash pile they already have.
*Shrugs. Apple make an affordable Mac machine for mortals? Believer it when I see it.
So, Apple are using the negotiations as leverage or are privy to some juicy new stuff. Either way, Apple's bank balance will be the winner.
Having said that. The iPad could well be it... It's not costing £1000 like many thought it would. To my shock...they...gasp...priced it affordably for mere mortals. Well, it's a frontier market, it's a prudent decision.
I had an Athlon PC and upgraded it to another 'speedy' Athlon a few years after. Good bang for the buck. Not the coolest running cpus. The tranquil ambience of my iMac is in stark contrast to the 'hairdryer' Athlon which I used to look forward to powering down for the blissful quiet that followed...
I have to laugh when posters talk about how they like Apple being a premium computer maker when Apple are still using crap gpus in their desktop lines, still having a Core2 Duo ancient chip in a desktop over a £1000, no affordable quad cpu option, STILL. And their 'workstation' computer ta boot comes with the best gpu as standard. As you'd expect from Apple. (Laughs.) It aint healthy to wear rose tinted spectacles. Makes you see thinks one colour.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That's a dumb argument. If your argument were correct, Apple would have done it years ago. Why wait so long?
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
When did they ever?
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Go buy something else then, if you think you're not getting your money's worth. Stop the whining.
Not gonna happen. Apple will use its purchasing power to get lower prices. The best way to do it would be to implement AMD chips across all its computers.
This has not been consistent with Apple past dealings with suppliers. They never put their eggs in one basket, and constantly pit suppliers against each other to get the best deals.
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
+1
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
When did they ever?
Apple products have been cheaper in the past, Mac wise.
It's not an iPhone, pod, pad complaint. Clearly the strategy is different.
Which makes the Mac pricing even more annoying to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
In case you haven't realized it, MBP prices have dropped from January 2009 to the current models. Also you are getting more for the same price that you were getting just last week. I bought my MBP last year and the price is less than when I got it, even with a education discount--go figure
If you are not happy with Apple prices you can either get a refurb or go to a used PC
I think people expecting low cost Macs are missing the big picture.
If true, this isn't about what AMD can do for them now. Its what AMD have in the pipeline.
My guess is that AMDs Fusion cpu/gpu and Bobcat processors are looking good. Its highly likely that Apple have some samples that they've gotten to experiment with. It also suggests to me that Apple are rejecting Intel's IG, because the last thing I read at Anand said that early reports on Sandy Bridge said that it looks "incredible based on early performance data".
The thing with packaging the graphics chip and cpu together means that the performance of the whole 'enchilada' is only as good as the weakest link. For Intel that's the IG. It doesn't look like Apple have much confidence in Intel's IG, regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, given the recent MBP update which makes sure that MBPs do not rely on the Intel IG.
I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).
+1
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
A Sandy Bridge core will be significantly better than a Llano core, but the Sandy Bridge GPU looks to be far behind the Llano GPU (if the rumors are true). CPU-wise, Sandy Bridge will easily beat Llano with equivalent core counts. But what about a TDP and price area where 2-core Sandy Bridge competes with 4-core Llano? There will be a similar one in the 25/35 W space where 25/35 W 4-core Champlain goes against 35 W 2-core Arrandale. Coincidentally, that space is right where the MacBook Pro is.
+1
Sandy Bridge as a CPU sounds fantastic. Sandy Bridge as an integrated CPU/GPU combo...not so great. I'm almost convinced that Intel doesn't have the DNA for graphics. Larrabee showed me that they struggle to execute in the GPU arena (yes I realize it's delayed but Intel often delays things and then suddently back burners the technology)
The other point I wanted to make was that this is probably a *good* sign for Open CL.
There hasn't been much talk and precious little in the the way of apps that utilize this technology. It seems like Apple are serious about OCL and are going to reject cpu/gpu combos that do not support this. Intel on the other hand seem to be more interested in a world where computing is done mostly on the cpu. They only seem to produce gpus that are 'good enough' for watching video and little else. GPGPU looks like something that is anathema to their future.
If the relationship worked out well and Bulldozer brings AMD back into a competitive position then they can expand the relationship. Otherwise, they at least improve the bargaining position they have with Intel.
I posted some speculations here about AMD and Apple. The GPU (of Llano) appears to be AMD's strongest advantage over Intel, while the high-end desktop area is where Intel may retain the largest lead over AMD (which incidentally isn't a CPU type used in any Macs, although the iMac may come close).
I read your post. Nice.
I think, like you allude, that AMD in Macs will go were Apple rely on integrated graphics. MacBooks, MBP (13"), MBAs, and minis.
Where Apple use dedicated graphics, Intel seem to make more sense.
They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible.
Apple never chooses 100% CPUs, with the possible exception of Mac Pros. Otherwise, CPU performance always takes a back seat to other factors.
This will be a good financial move for Apple and will come at very little cost to the consumer. It's the right thing to do. The only downside is it will give Apple haters some ammo.
Why? Those folks also dislike Wintel.
Apple might be moving away from the Premium pricing model and heading down the iPad road . . .
I would expect that will be the case. Their new lines, the iPod, iPhone and iPad are MUCH more successful than their old computer lines. They are now a huge company, and they have three categories in which they are market leaders instead of also-rans.
A change in basic architecture and a change in focus seem aligned.
I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.
Every computer I have ever built used an AMD chip. My old Laptop used an AMD chip.
They are MUCH better than Intel, dollar for dollar, or at least, they were at the time.