AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 159
    ajmasajmas Posts: 558member
    This is possible, since they already had mixed suppliers when they were dealing with the PowerPC. The only thing is that Apple will only do this if it is in their interest. Currently AMD doesn't seem to have anything that fills the more performance per watt category, but the day the do that and give Intel the run for their money, then you may just well see Apple knocking on the door, as long as it doesn't screw their relationship with Intel.
  • Reply 42 of 159
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.



    And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...
  • Reply 43 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wtfk


    They may or may not use AMD chips, but the did not "adapt" OS X to Intel. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the port was to PowerPC, not Intel. NeXT already ran on Intel, and when they developed OS X, they developed it for both Intel and PowerPC, but they HID the Intel side.



    Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.



    The port was several ways.



    First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.
  • Reply 44 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Franck


    According to what ? I thought it was IBM. \



    It could be IBM, if the game chips will count, once they get the numbers.
  • Reply 45 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio


    The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...



    So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?



    It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.



    Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.



    I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.



    just because they take the same stance in buisness as apple doesnt mean we have to like them O.o
  • Reply 46 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio


    The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...



    So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?



    It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.



    Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.



    I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.



    AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.



    The shoe is now on the other foot, so to speak. Now it's AMD that has to prove themselves.



    The only advantage they have right now is in four to eight socket systems.



    That's why it's strange that Dell would choose this time to move over to such a great extent.



    Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?
  • Reply 47 of 159
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.



    AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.



    But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.
  • Reply 48 of 159
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?



    As I've stated before, show me a well-intentioned startup and I'll show you a potential "evil empire". It's the nature of the game when big money is on the line.
  • Reply 49 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio


    And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...



    No, it won't.



    AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.



    They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.



    They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.



    By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.



    AMD will have a lot of work to do.
  • Reply 50 of 159
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    No, it won't.



    AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.



    They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.



    They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.



    By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.



    AMD will have a lot of work to do.



    Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it?



    Though I admit that it's going to take more than a heartbeat for AMD to catch up. Just as it's taken Apple a long time to come back from near-death.
  • Reply 51 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio


    Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it?



    How so?
  • Reply 52 of 159
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nascarnate326


    Oh, please no. iMac with AMD = nascarnate with x86 Intel PC.



    Insead of upgrading chips every 2 months, why dont they update the machine its self. I want the G4 style iMac back! Death to the chin!



    That's not an update, it's a downgrade and also means a price hike instead of reduction.



    It's just like with people.

    Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.
  • Reply 53 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio


    AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.



    But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.



    AMD's problems were that they would design a truly good high end chip, only to have massive production problems.



    When that leading edge chip came out, AMD would have to discount it to sell to the low end, as Intel had surpassed it a while back.



    AMD was relegated to being a second tier supplier because of that.



    So, yes, their low end chips were somewhat better, but that wasn't the plan.
  • Reply 54 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gar


    It's just like with people.

    Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.



    I had a French teacher in high school who looked like that.
  • Reply 55 of 159
    I hope Apple does consider it. More competition between these two chip makers is always good for the consumer. They force each other to lower prices, and try to make the next best chip. Competition=Good
  • Reply 56 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    The port was several ways.



    First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.



    APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.
  • Reply 57 of 159
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,178member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider


    ..."Everybody wants choice,'' he said, adding that rival Intel Corp's practices have stifled the PC industry's growth. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"



    "Choice" & "Knowing Apple" in the same paragraph - hmmm



    Hector doesn't realise that Apple products work specifically because of lack of 'choice' in their end-to-end solutions and that others fail because they sell on the perception of 'choice' and in doing so fail to produce a cohesive, workable solution (or obsess so much with the techology they never saw one to aim for in the first place).



    I don't think he "Knows" Apple very well at all but we'll see.



    McD
  • Reply 58 of 159
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,178member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wtfk


    APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.



    Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions )



    McD
  • Reply 59 of 159
    amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.
  • Reply 60 of 159
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison


    I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.





    IBM wouldn't move with Apple, so IBM got the boot.



    It wasn't possible to get a fast PPC into a laptop formfactor, so Apple decided to get a whole new supplier.



    When migrating to a new instruction set, you must move ALL your products so that way developers can develop for 1 OS build.



    AMD may fit in eventually, but AMD does not use chips that Apple wants right now.
Sign In or Register to comment.