Apple to use AMD Fusion APUs
http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/it...eed-use-fusion
Good to see Apple are not asleep at the switch... AMD is opening up a can of whup-ass on Intel in 2011, and Fusion (a Radeon GPU built into a CPU, for both graphics and OpenCL) is one of the pillars of their strategy.
Think Minis, MBAs etc where Apple are currently using deprecated Core2 chips and NVidia integrated graphics.
Graphics, historically Intel's core area of neglect, is AMD's strength, and I would argue matter more than CPU instructions per second for end-user satisfaction.
Good to see Apple are not asleep at the switch... AMD is opening up a can of whup-ass on Intel in 2011, and Fusion (a Radeon GPU built into a CPU, for both graphics and OpenCL) is one of the pillars of their strategy.
Think Minis, MBAs etc where Apple are currently using deprecated Core2 chips and NVidia integrated graphics.
Graphics, historically Intel's core area of neglect, is AMD's strength, and I would argue matter more than CPU instructions per second for end-user satisfaction.
Comments
Think Minis, MBAs etc where Apple are currently using deprecated Core2 chips and NVidia integrated graphics.
The wording seems a bit weak, they're trying too hard to make it plausible by suggesting Apple aren't happy about it. It appears to be based on comments made by an AMD exec:
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/10/...sion-platform/
"Now let's talk a moment about the things we've done together. In this chart you're going to see some of the great products that our partners have introduced into the market. Remember a year ago, I shared with you "Watch out in this space, there will be a bunch of new products entering the market in 2010, products that you've never seen before from AMD." All of these products have been fairly successful into the marketplace, and it is fair to say that we have never had this level of successful products in the marketplace."
To me that isn't necessarily a reference to Apple but a Bobcat-based tablet like NVidia are trying. Not the iPad though because the iPad has a 25W/h battery and 10 hours of battery life so average of 2.5 Watts for screen + CPU + GPU. Bobcat does ramp down to 1W but I don't think that's low enough for the iPad yet. It would be way more powerful but when using that power, would suck down 10W and drain an iPad in less than 2 hours.
Using AMD as a replacement for Core 2 Duo + NVidia is the most sensible option but nothing the AMD exec said suggested that. I would love to see a Mac Mini with a quad core CPU fused with a Radeon 5600-series GPU. Almost instant doubling of performance. Rumours suggest it won't arrive until late 2011 though so likely nothing new soon with APUs.
The notebook lineup needs a bit of attention but what I can see happening is that Apple just drop the Macbook and lets the MBA take that place.
The Macbook is 2.4GHz vs 1.4GHz
The Macbook Air is aluminium not plastic
The Macbook Air is half the weight
The Macbook Air has a higher resolution
The Macbook Air has a much faster storage option at 150MB/s vs 50MB/s although right now is only 64GB
When we hit the new SSD densities around March, the entry MBA can get 128GB for the same price and maybe bump up the CPU a little. The value and performance of the MBA will be higher than the MB to most users with instant-on etc. Then begins the movement away from optical and the MBP could drop $100.
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...ace-amd-fusion
"In a series of Fusion APU slides, Ghilardi also showed slide number 7, which clearly named Apple as one of the many Fusion partners."
Marvin:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...ace-amd-fusion
"In a series of Fusion APU slides, Ghilardi also showed slide number 7, which clearly named Apple as one of the many Fusion partners."
Sure but they said:
"AMD Senior PR Manager Chris Hook told us that Apple is currently just an AMD hardware partner, but not a Fusion customer. "Neither Apple nor AMD have made any announcements regarding Fusion in any future Apple product,""
It's a possibility they are involved and given the rumours of meetings between them. It's not a certainty though. NVidia looks to have found a way around Intel's blockade in Sandy Bridge, which means Apple can get a fast NVidia IGP alongside an Intel CPU and they'd be able to do this early 2011.
This development would certainly have implications for the MBA as they can put in a lower clocked core-i series chip and match the performance of the old C2D Macbook but keep the powerful NVidia graphics.
For example when the Zacate chip is out it could successfully replace the Core 2/NVidia combo in the current AIRs. All they would really need out of Zacate is a slightly higher clock rate.
For somthing like the Mac Book, Zacate might be suitable if they can hit 2.6 GHz and if not there is the higher end Fusion chips to consider. Either way it means a smaller motherboard or room for other stuff.
The big problem with this thread is that the material does not support the idea launched. To my ears I heard nothing about Fusion but rather heard about current hardware. It really looks like the rumor mill is broken.
The big problem with this thread is that the material does not support the idea launched. To my ears I heard nothing about Fusion but rather heard about current hardware. It really looks like the rumor mill is broken.
Not even the line "A very reliable source close to AMD has informed us that Apple will indeed use Fusion APUs in some of its upcoming products." from the article "Apple will indeed use Fusion"?
I see these chips as game changers.
For example when the Zacate chip is out it could successfully replace the Core 2/NVidia combo in the current AIRs. All they would really need out of Zacate is a slightly higher clock rate.
For somthing like the Mac Book, Zacate might be suitable if they can hit 2.6 GHz and if not there is the higher end Fusion chips to consider. Either way it means a smaller motherboard or room for other stuff.
The big problem with this thread is that the material does not support the idea launched. To my ears I heard nothing about Fusion but rather heard about current hardware. It really looks like the rumor mill is broken.
Unfortunately, higher-end Fusion chips now aren't coming until the second half of next year, at which point they'll be obsolete before they launch (with Phenom II derived CPU cores). And Zacate isn't going to clock much faster than 1.6-1.8 GHz in the meantime. It would be a great chip for the 11.6" Macbook Air, but given Apple's track record, I wouldn't expect a MBA update for at least a year.
That's around the time we should see Zacate's successor, which will have (up to) four improved Bobcat cores. If any AMD Fusion ship is going into an Apple product, it'll be that, in the MBA, then. Llano won't be very competitive when it comes out in eight months.
Unfortunately, higher-end Fusion chips now aren't coming until the second half of next year, at which point they'll be obsolete before they launch (with Phenom II derived CPU cores). And Zacate isn't going to clock much faster than 1.6-1.8 GHz in the meantime. It would be a great chip for the 11.6" Macbook Air, but given Apple's track record, I wouldn't expect a MBA update for at least a year.
That's around the time we should see Zacate's successor, which will have (up to) four improved Bobcat cores. If any AMD Fusion ship is going into an Apple product, it'll be that, in the MBA, then. Llano won't be very competitive when it comes out in eight months.
Well I disagree.
Sure Llano isn't going to beat SB in a CPU race. Not now and certainly not when it arrives on the market.
But Llano only has to be faster than a mobile Core 2 Duo cpu to find a nice niche in Apple's product line. All the Macs with Core2 duos and NVIDIA IGPs could see a nice speed bump moving to AMD Llano.
WIll it happen? Time will tell. I'm not convinced that Apple will use Intel cpus with the Intel IGPs. The IGPs don't look like they'll be OCL compatible and they are a fairly sharp drop off performance wise to what Apple offer now in the 320m.
Well I disagree.
Sure Llano isn't going to beat SB in a CPU race. Not now and certainly not when it arrives on the market.
But Llano only has to be faster than a mobile Core 2 Duo cpu to find a nice niche in Apple's product line. All the Macs with Core2 duos and NVIDIA IGPs could see a nice speed bump moving to AMD Llano.
WIll it happen? Time will tell. I'm not convinced that Apple will use Intel cpus with the Intel IGPs. The IGPs don't look like they'll be OCL compatible and they are a fairly sharp drop off performance wise to what Apple offer now in the 320m.
After thinking about it, I think Apple will drop the optical drive from the 13" Macbook and Macbook Pro to give them both SB CPUs with low-end discrete GPUs (which is also one more way to differentiate those two all-too-similar products).
The Macbook and MBP should both be updated before Llano becomes available.
After thinking about it, I think Apple will drop the optical drive from the 13" Macbook and Macbook Pro to give them both SB CPUs with low-end discrete GPUs (which is also one more way to differentiate those two all-too-similar products).
The Macbook and MBP should both be updated before Llano becomes available.
Entirely possible and SJ did say he believed that the MBA was the future of mobile computing. I would agree that the future of optical drives in Mac laptops is in doubt.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to AMD adoption in Macs is AMD's lousy timetable. LLano needs to be available in the first quarter of 2011.
Unfortunately, higher-end Fusion chips now aren't coming until the second half of next year, at which point they'll be obsolete before they launch (with Phenom II derived CPU cores).
While the delay with the high end Fusion products is regrettable I'd hardly call them obsolete at launch. That makes about as much sense as the people who call the Core 2's in the AIR or the MacBook obsolete. The fact is the Core 2 is still a viable processor and a far better performer than what you see in many low cost laptops.
And Zacate isn't going to clock much faster than 1.6-1.8 GHz in the meantime.
Well it is launching at around 1.6 GHz but we really don't know what it's upper end is. It is the nature of the business to launch at a low clock rate until yields are up.
It would be a great chip for the 11.6" Macbook Air, but given Apple's track record, I wouldn't expect a MBA update for at least a year.
Great, how about fantastic. The CPU performance would be pretty close and the overall power level is likely lower. By the time the AIR is ready for an update we could hope for a 2 to 2.2GHz Zacate. Even if that does exist as a chip I could see Apple milking the motherboard in the AIR for two years. It all depends upon AIR being a hit and the sales justifying more agressive updates. If a model sells well Apple isn't shy about being more aggressive with updates.
I actually was a bit disappointed that AIR didn't have Zacate in it. Zacate is almost ideal for the AIR's, especially the 11" model.
That's around the time we should see Zacate's successor, which will have (up to) four improved Bobcat cores. If any AMD Fusion ship is going into an Apple product, it'll be that, in the MBA, then. Llano won't be very competitive when it comes out in eight months.
Zacates successor sounds really nice but I do hope they can control power usage on the four core unit. Either way once AMD gets the clock rate up Zacate or Bobcat based chips will likely end up in more machines than many might expect. I just see it as a compelling platform.
As to Llano I'm not sure what you mean by competitive. If you are talking pure CPU performance maybe not. If you are talking about a platform that can be put into something like a MacBook or Mini and give very good results the I'd have to say Llano will be very competitive right out of the box. You have to remember that not every machine needs bleeding edge performance, all Apple needs to do is provide better performance than the previous model.
As a side note I've been wondering if AMD might be willing to do custom SoC for companies like Apple. Especially with the Bobcat based hardware. Right now Zacate is extremely small die size wise so it could be very economical to integrate all of ones I/O onto the SoC. I suspect that AMD might be willing to do so for a price. This would give Apple an opportunity to shrink the motherboard even more and provide for even more battery space in the AIR's.
In any event Bobcats success or failure is all in AMDs hands right now. Bobcat as a core is lightyears ahead of ATOM and many other common laptop cores. It is an example of a chip where they have a clear advantage over Intel.
Well I disagree.
Sure Llano isn't going to beat SB in a CPU race. Not now and certainly not when it arrives on the market.
Exactly. More importantly it does have to beat SB on pure CPU benchmarks because it will have an OpenCL supporting GPU for apps that need it.
But Llano only has to be faster than a mobile Core 2 Duo cpu to find a nice niche in Apple's product line. All the Macs with Core2 duos and NVIDIA IGPs could see a nice speed bump moving to AMD Llano.
Which is very important to understand. As long as the new Mini (for example) out performs the old one people will be happy. The reality is people don't buy Apples low power machines for massive CPU performance anyways. If that was a concern people would be demanding desktop CPUs in the Mini.
Besides when talking about Apple using AMD hardware people seem to think it is all or nothing. That is that all Apple machines would go that route or none. This would never be the case, what we are suggesting is using the right AMD hardware in the right platforms.
WIll it happen? Time will tell. I'm not convinced that Apple will use Intel cpus with the Intel IGPs. The IGPs don't look like they'll be OCL compatible and they are a fairly sharp drop off performance wise to what Apple offer now in the 320m.
OCL is likely to be a key technology for Apple well into the future. If you look at AMDs plans for Fusion you will see that long term their vision complements Apples better than Intels.
The problem with Intel and SB is that we don't know about OCL support on the GPU. Further with the GPU being all new we don't know if it will be as screwed up as Intels previous GPUs or not. The contrast between the Intel hardware and the first generation Fusion product is pretty stark. It actually looks like Intel is off the tracks with respect to the future of programming and computer systems in general.
AMDs goals with Fusion can be likened to a heterogeneous multi processing platform where the GPU becomes more of an equal to the CPU. Well equal in the sense that they will be able to use the same address space amongst other things. You just get the feeling that AMDs long term goals are the same as Apples.
... You just get the feeling that AMDs long term goals are the same as Apples.
I get that feeling too.
I just hope AMD can execute and get their chips to market on time or even early.
Llano should be here in the first quarter of 2011 in order to meet Apple's anticipated update cycle.
I really like where AMD is going its just a matter of them following through on their vision.
Sandy Bridge is 12 months off for OpenCL readiness.
Apple will expand it's reach with AMD.
I get that feeling too.
It is really too bad Zacate wasn't ready for MacBook AIR.
I just hope AMD can execute and get their chips to market on time or even early.
This is a big issue, AMD needs to get the chips to market In a time frame that is competitive with Intels. By this I mean shipping product in volume within a couple of months of Intel shipping in volume. Depending upon the product AMD already has better offerings, for example Intel has nothing that even comes close to the Bobcat core.
Llano should be here in the first quarter of 2011 in order to meet Apple's anticipated update cycle.
Actually with the missing fall update the update could come anytime. The rumors of an April update gives one hope that maybe they are waiting on AMD. In any event this won't be the first time that Apple has drawn out an update.
I really like where AMD is going its just a matter of them following through on their vision.
The follow through is big issue. If AMD gets the stuff to market at the right time they could see a big ramp up in sales. It won't be the high end as that is still a place for descrete chips, but mainstream and low end is in AMDs court.
Apple's all about fat margins. Zacate would allow them to roll in even more money, and cut the price to boot. And shrink their mobo.
Zacate in AIRs and Llano in things like the MacBooks and the Mini. I do hope a price cut comes on some of the products. Every once and awhile Apple needs to refactor it's pricing and now is the time, especially on the MacBook and Mini.
AMD's Fusion and rest of it's CPU/GPU line up are already OpenCL 1.1 certified and ready to roll.
Sandy Bridge is 12 months off for OpenCL readiness.
Apple will expand it's reach with AMD.
OpenCL is of course a big issue but it is also little things like USB 3 that might be pulling at Apple too. More so AMD seems to be lined up with Apple's customer wants and needs. The only practicle way to get USB 3 in a compact notebook is to have it built into the chipset.
Unfortunately, higher-end Fusion chips now aren't coming until the second half of next year, at which point they'll be obsolete before they launch (with Phenom II derived CPU cores). And Zacate isn't going to clock much faster than 1.6-1.8 GHz in the meantime. It would be a great chip for the 11.6" Macbook Air, but given Apple's track record, I wouldn't expect a MBA update for at least a year.
That's around the time we should see Zacate's successor, which will have (up to) four improved Bobcat cores. If any AMD Fusion ship is going into an Apple product, it'll be that, in the MBA, then. Llano won't be very competitive when it comes out in eight months.
I would venture, after looking through the benchmarks eg. Anandtech, Zacate would not be good enough for even the 11" 1.4ghz MBA. There's hope for Llano, but again it's a wait-and-see thing. AMD's GPUs are of course sweet, but their CPU tech still leaves a little more to be desired. They are neither at the level of ARM on one side nor Core 2 on the other.
I wish the best for AMD CPU and APUs in 2011 but it's going to be challenging for them. They will get design wins with various manufacturers of course, because of cost and GPU performance helping them market the APUs. Also because the APUs will be better than most Atoms for example Zacate vs Atom.
This all is hell for Apple because their next MBP 13" has to be at least Core i3s which means a discrete GPU and also having to make it thinner and lighter and throw out the ODD and still deliver 8-10 hours of battery life. Apple has at most 1 more revision of MBP 13" with Core 2 Duo, after that it simply cannot have Core 2 anymore from competitive standpoints. Then again, they have to differentiate the MBA 13" from the MBP 13" so the MBP 13" can't be too sweet compared to the MBA 13".
Hah. Maybe what I'm saying is I want a MBP 15" with Core i5 and Nvidia 460 class graphics at the same or lighter weight than the current MBP 13" and with strongly MBA-inspired design. I'll pay up to $2,000 USD for that. I know, one can dream, it will come someday. Oh and that MBP 15" should have 320GB SSD.
OpenCL is of course a big issue but it is also little things like USB 3 that might be pulling at Apple too. More so AMD seems to be lined up with Apple's customer wants and needs. The only practicle way to get USB 3 in a compact notebook is to have it built into the chipset.
NVidia have also refuted the South Bridge IGP + SB option:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100901PD215.html
An Nvidia spokesperson denied the news saying,"We have already announced that we have withdrawn from the Intel chipset marketplace. We have no plans to return to it and are not developing new Intel chipset products."
If that's true, this leaves Apple no option but to either find a way to get a dedicated GPU inside the lower-end products or jump ship to AMD. They simply can't use SB alone with no OpenCL support but then if they jump to AMD, they likely won't benefit from Light Peak and given that a Mac system was used to demo it, it seems likely they will be using it.
If they can get the 330M + SB into the low-end, that would be fine though. Other manufacturers have managed to do this albeit with a slightly higher cost. But Llano would be more appealing that this for power consumption and size.