Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips

1356720

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 395
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,584member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    AMD has been shipping Opteron servers for ages in 24/7 environments. I'm not too worried about them delivering garbage.



    The only chips AMD offers that are good, are 4 socket devices, which Apple can't use. Intel has then as well. All are too expensive, and suck too much power.



    The rest are second rate. AMD has has two good years. Those good years were only because Intel went down the wrong path. That won't happen again.
  • Reply 42 of 395
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't want this to happen?EVER!!!



    Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.



    I hope, assuming that this article is true, that this is just a negotiating ploy on Apple's part.



    I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.



    And what were your thoughts after Apple announced that they were going with Intel processors?



    Seriously, I don't see much wrong with this decision. Throw AMD chips in the plastic MacBook, Apple TV, and Mac Mini. Leave the Intel chips in the iMac and MacBook Pro lines. It's a tossup in the Mac Pro sector IMHO.



    That being said, guys, it's just a chip. Apple knows what they're doing better than you do so chill.
  • Reply 43 of 395
    Perhaps they will stick with Intel for the Pro lines and move to AMD to lower prices a bit in the other lines. If they can shave $20 or more off the cost of an Apple TV, it sounds like a no-brainer. I would expect the next version to do 1080P video. Apple will go with the lowest cost processor/GPU combo that can do that.
  • Reply 44 of 395
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    No. AMD is the same ISA (X86) . Building in support would be a piece of cake by comparison.



    Thanks! Unfortunately, I don't know much about processor design.
  • Reply 45 of 395
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,584member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    No. AMD is the same ISA (X86) . Building in support would be a piece of cake by comparison.



    Except that they aren't exactly the same, as they use different technologies in a number of areas. Developers often code for one chip or the other. In fact, almost all code for Intel, making AMD performance inferior in a number of areas. The only place where that's not true is HPC, and Apple doesn't compete there, unless, very unlikely as it may be, Apple is considering it now.



    AMD has no leading technologies anymore, and a poor record of presenting product on time.



    Just look at their problems in the past two years Now, without their own fab, they will have even more problems with optimization.



    Unfortunately, I have to leave for the day, so I won't be back 'till late. Too bad, this is the most important discussion here in years, if true.
  • Reply 46 of 395
    I see this more as Apple has a plan for success when it comes to how Apple products are manufactured and produced. It appears Intel is blocking that by forcing Apple to use only Intel and that is obviously not working well for them.



    So just like everything else, Apple explores their options and continues to innovate and if someone stops them, like Intel, they move to someone else.



    One thing that is consistent about Apple, they innovate and they are not afraid to change to do so. Something many companies are afraid to do.



    I look forward to seeing more good things come from this.
  • Reply 47 of 395
    ilogicilogic Posts: 298member
    Apple does well buy not having an Intel Inside sticker on their computers. If Apple is exploring a new partnership with AMD, I have no doubt they have a plan up their sleeve. With the release of the A4, Apple is in the chip business - lets not forget.
  • Reply 48 of 395
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,432member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The only chips AMD offers that are good, are 4 socket devices, which Apple can't use. Intel has then as well. All are too expensive, and suck too much power.



    The rest are second rate. AMD has has two good years. Those good years were only because Intel went down the wrong path. That won't happen again.



    If it happened once it can happen twice. We'll see how well Bulldozer works. Intel rode their new Yonah/Merom and successor cores to great success.



    In the epic AMD/Intel battle the "seesaw" action really comes from leveraging new cores. If Bulldozer and some of the better power/watt AMD cores come out and perform well then it's a whole new ballgame.



    AMD has an unquestionable lead in GPU technology compared to Intel so their integrated options are going to perform better for the forseeable future. If Apple is serious about utilizing OpenCL..Intel is not where it's at; AMD is.
  • Reply 49 of 395
    woodewoode Posts: 67member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcloki View Post


    iPads are going to be sellign like hotcakes over the next 3-4 years. 1 million by 2011...



    LOL, 1 million iPads by the end of the month at the rate they're going now!



    Regarding Apple using AMD chips, well, it's only a matter of time. Especially if Intel really is constraining Apple in any way, whether limited access to newest chips, or simply on volume. That is, of course, balanced in my mind by their past partnerships, especially the MacBook Air processor.
  • Reply 50 of 395
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,432member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Except that they aren't exactly the same, as they use different technologies in a number of areas. Developers often code for one chip or the other. In fact, almost all code for Intel, making AMD performance inferior in a number of areas. The only place where that's not true is HPC, and Apple doesn't compete there, unless, very unlikely as it may be, Apple is considering it now.



    AMD has no leading technologies anymore, and a poor record of presenting product on time.



    Just look at their problems in the past two years Now, without their own fab, they will have even more problems with optimization.



    Unfortunately, I have to leave for the day, so I won't be back 'till late. Too bad, this is the most important discussion here in years, if true.



    This difference in X86 support is miniscule compared to the PPC to X86 transition in which Endian issues alone caused much work to be done. Again I'll continue to harp on this. With Apple's support and collaboration on LLVM/Clang it would be as simple as a compiler flag to target an AMD based machine.
  • Reply 51 of 395
    Wouldn't it be funny if AAPL purchased AMD the way AMD did ATI?



    Nah, Apple isn't in the market for chip makers.

    If they were, they would've purchased ARMH.
  • Reply 52 of 395
    jetlawjetlaw Posts: 156member
    Quote:

    Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips



    Not to be too anal-retentive, but I think the author meant "advance" discussions, not "advanced."



    I have noticed that the grammar and spelling on AI has been in a state of decline lately! Hopefully my post will be taken as constructive, as I am a big fan of the site, and start every morning my coming here to see what is new in the world of Apple!



    -Josh
  • Reply 53 of 395
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by min_t View Post


    Apple doesn't want to be held hostage by outsiders as they were in the past with Motorola/IBM, Adobe/Micro.... They are determined not to make the same mistake again. Wouldn't be surprised at some point, Apple buys Adobe and AMD for future-proofing their roadmap.



    Both are unlikely. Apple doesn't like to acquire debt. Both AMD and Adobe are heavily in debt from acquiring ATI and Macromedia respectively. If Adobe never bought Macromedia, I'm sure there would be a lot of interest for Apple to acquire them. With Adobe's debt, Apple would be better off writing competing products. For all we know, Apple intends to release 40-core ARM processors. Apple controls the whole stack, so they can make more dramatic moves if it makes sense to. Stranger things have happened though. It would certainly boost AMDs margins if Apple were to acquire them. It is more likely that AMD has some new mobile tech in the pipeline and they are more willing to work with Apple on a custom system on a chip. It is clear that Apple wants to get their entire MacBook Pro line above 10 hours of battery life and this is the only way it is going to happen any time soon.
  • Reply 54 of 395
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    This difference in X86 support is miniscule compared to the PPC to X86 transition in which Endian issues alone caused much work to be done. Again I'll continue to harp on this. With Apple's support and collaboration on LLVM/Clang it would be as simple as a compiler flag to target an AMD based machine.



    Intel's current x86-64 technology is cross licensed from AMD, so really, really minuscule.



    I got 1 word for anyone who believes in Intel's infallibility - Itanium.
  • Reply 55 of 395
    Apple had OS X running on Intel years before the switch. I would be willing to be large sums of money they have OS X already running very well on AMD if they ever did decided to go that route.



    Apple is a very forward thinking company. A decision like this would not be made without much forethought.
  • Reply 56 of 395
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JasonQ13 View Post


    Using AMD in MacBooks and Intel in MacBook Pros would certainly differentiate the lines...



    Um-m-m-m, no. Macs do not ship with Intel Inside stickers. The Intel-based Macs look pretty much like the PPC-based Macs that they replaced. I expect no AMD stickers on AMD-based Macs. Macs with AMD processors will look pretty much like Macs with Intel processors.
  • Reply 57 of 395
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    This difference in X86 support is miniscule compared to the PPC to X86 transition in which Endian issues alone caused much work to be done. Again I'll continue to harp on this. With Apple's support and collaboration on LLVM/Clang it would be as simple as a compiler flag to target an AMD based machine.



    It is possible that our FAT binaries would change at some point too. LLVM supports a bit-code format that could be used for install time compilation. The compiler is quite fast too. This could help lower the impact if Apple chose to do a major CPU shift again. AMD is a pretty easy platform to switch to because it uses the same instruction set though.



    What I think would be more interesting is if Apple added an ARM chip for low power mode. Essentially run on an ARM processor unless the performance of an Intel or AMD chip were needed then run those processes on that chip. Of course this would require some very clever chipset design. It seems like an ARM processor (embedded in the chipset) could handle most of the work leaving the Intel for complicated rendering and apps that were not compiled for ARM.
  • Reply 58 of 395
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    ATI is one thing, AMD another. AAPL will use the former but not the latter.



    "If AMD can deliver 80% of the CPU performance of Intel at 60% of the cost, and add significantly better GPU performance and sophistication, it would not be surprising to see Apple working to adopt the company's parts broadly across its Mac lineup within the next year or two."



    Learn that in kindergarten?
  • Reply 59 of 395
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kennethsteven View Post


    Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?



    Agree 100%. Apple will not do anything to sully it's brand. I think Apple wants Intel to reach a deal with Nvidia. That's why the 13' MacBooks have not moved to Core i3. Instead, they moved to a faster Nvidia chip. And by moving to automatic switching, they have blunted the criticism of Intel HD in the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros.



    Apple is not happy with the current state of affairs between Intel and Nvidia. I bet Steve has been calling Intel's people to give them a piece of his mind.
  • Reply 60 of 395
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post


    Wouldn't it be funny if AAPL purchased AMD the way AMD did ATI?



    Nah, Apple isn't in the market for chip makers.

    If they were, they would've purchased ARMH.



    Except for the fact that ARMH (which stands for ARM Holdings) licenses its technology as intellectual property instead of manufacturing its own CPUs like Intel, AMD and others do.



    And by the way, there's nothing second rate about AMD: they've been the first to release a consumer level 64bit and dual core CPU in 2005 -- featuring a on chip memory controller that made it to Intel's CPU only recently with the Nehalem architecture -- back when Intel was wasting time on its NetBurst micro architecture.



    Granted, Intel has regained the lead since then, but AMD still offers a good price/performance ratio and, possibly even more important, guarantees some sanity in the market: rest assured that if AMD wasn't around the CPUs in our Macs would be a lot more expensive -- anyone remembers the days when a Pentium II cost an arm and a leg just because Intel said so?





    RT.
Sign In or Register to comment.