It's funny, your comment infers that notebook-grade components should be less expensive than their desktop-grade counterparts. Note that in computing when you go to smaller, denser and more power efficient you end up paying a premium for parts. This is why no laptop is ever less expensive and more powerful than a desktop.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
Everything you are stating is coming from you perspective. You may as well say "I don't like all in one system"
The Macintosh started out as an All in One design. The iMac has been a perennial best seller. Mac users generally are don't care what's in the box. We do here on AI because we're Geeks, Enthusiasts or Pros. I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone about their Mac and started trying to figure out what model they have via their specs and they don't have a clue. The specs never mattered to them.
Apple sells Macs based on what you do. They don't have to highlight the speeds and feeds because their justification for premium pricing is the design of OS and casing.
So in this case it really doesn't matter on if there's Intel Inside or AMD inside. It doesn't matter if the GPU is AMD or Nvidia. Apple's going to hit a certain price/performance mix and deliver their product.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
Of course they don't. I can buy a desktop system for under $400 that is more powerful and has more capacity than most if not all notebooks for at least $600, maybe even $800.
What OEM PC does sell for less than one you can build? That is a silly strawman.
Quote:
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
Yet Apple is the only OEM that appears to be growing in desktop sales while everyone else is dropping out. Do you honestly think that it's all Mac Pros not iMacs or Mac minis?
As hmurchison hit on, it's not about getting a better spec sheet, it's about getting a machine that is best for your needs. You may not understand why a person would not want to build their own PC, why they want a PC that has quality service and support from one vendor, or why someone wants an complete system, but the fact is that people obviously do. Why do you think notebooks are growing while desktops are shrinking in consumer market YoY? Do you think all these people are traveling more? No, they just want something simple that works without a rat's next of cables to deal with.
The days of huge tower with stickers and neon lights to show off your HW is no longer in vogue. Most people aren't trying to impress their friends with a spec sheet, they just want a machine that works the way they expect it to.
Mac users generally are don't care what's in the box. We do here on AI because we're Geeks, Enthusiasts or Pros.
I'd say that Mac users care about performance more than the "geeks" give them credit for. I think that Mac users on the whole just look at other performance aspect than just the CPU clockrate and GPU shaders.
One example is battery life. People have been complaining that Apple didn't use Core-i7 last year when other OEMs offered them and are still complaining that they are only dual-core when last year's Core-i7s were quad-core. Apple is screwing us! Yet they are ignoring the 45W to 55W TDP and the fact that these machines don't do so well on battery power.
Going against everything Joe has stated, I was going to get a 15" MBP with this release but the new 13" MBP looks more ideal as it has a longer battery life. 11-25% more battery life may not seems like much but if that GPU kicks on in the larger models that number drops considerably.
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.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
I don't want to rely on more ifs. Intel has a great product, and we know they can supply it. When they have a delay, I don't worry, because I know it will be short. With AMD, it could be years.
In addition, some of the most frequent talk in the microprocessor industry is what AMD s losing by no longer having their own manufacturing. Intel developed the best processes in the world because they control every bit of it. They have their program which duplicates chip plants almost down to the finest dust particle. What does AMD have now? Nothing!
Both Nvidia and ATI know what problems you can get into using someone elses' manufacturing. Look at the problems TMSC continually has.
As Apple's sale continue to rise between 25 to 40% a year, I don't see how they can afford to take the chance that the far smaller AMD, with no guaranteed manufacturing capabilities will always be able to meet their needs. We hopefully remember the problems they had, and WHY the went to Intel rather than AMD, as some thought they would.
I hope these talks, if they are real, are about gpus rather than cpus.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
Intel was in the same shoe. Have you already forgotten the P4/D days? If it weren't for AMD licensing their technology, we would not have seen intel core2 platform.
Either way, we've seen IBM, MOTO, INTC, and AMD fumbling through here and there. It seems the table is turning and AMD may be taking the crown back for next few years to come. Apple took INTC's hand when intel was rising and it does make sense for apple to do the same with AMD this time around.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
It doesn't sound like you're talking about notebook processors in any regard. Just having the fastest chip per dollar won't make AMD dominate in any realistic sense. Without being able to compete with Intel on power and efficiency we're going to continue to see Intel stale their notebook releases and keep their prices high.
There are few things to consider IF we do assume that Apple is in talks with AMD, that the talks are for CPUs and that these CPUs are for notebooks.
For starters, maybe Apple is looking at AMD as a possible future partner for CPUs based on their roadmap. It seems that a lot of people are assuming it will be fairly quick but perhaps Apple is looking to set something up for 2011 or 2012. No harm in talking, right. Another aspect is Apple looking to differentiate their Mac line even more. As Apple grows their line has to grow or they will continue to be farther and farther behind other vendors when it comes to new chips.
It makes me wonder if Apple would want to phase in AMD at the lowend (Mac mini, Macbook) and see how things go and if all goes well 2011 is a larger kickoff with AMD getting in at the Mac Pro level as well.
There are still plenty of people happy with Opteron based workstations though Intel's made up a lot of ground here with 5000 series Xeons.
It makes me wonder if Apple would want to phase in AMD at the lowend (Mac mini, Macbook) and see how things go and if all goes well 2011 is a larger kickoff with AMD getting in at the Mac Pro level as well.
There are still plenty of people happy with Opteron based workstations though Intel's made up a lot of ground here with 5000 series Xeons.
That sounds an intelligent way to introduce it. There is also the possibility that new products that aren't Macs come come to be using inexpensive yet powerful AMD chips. I think an Apple-branded Home Server is needed and would be quite popular. While that might be best served by A4 with iPhone OS sans Cocoa Touch, my point is that there are plenty of possibilities for growth to consider outside of the current line up.
Why do you think Apple will move to use AMD exclusively?
If this does happen I think it'll be to use AMD cpu/gpu products in machines that rely on integrated graphics.
Unless AMD has cpus that'll outperform Sandy Bridge, and that appears unlikely from what I've read but one never knows, I don't see Apple moving to an AMD cpus in all the Apple products.
Unless AMD has cpus that'll outperform Sandy Bridge, and that appears unlikely from what I've read but one never knows, I don't see Apple moving to an AMD cpus in all the Apple products.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
If 16 Bulldozer cores > 8 Sandy Bridge cores then that may mean Bulldozer's the way to go. Magny-cours trades blows with Westmere and current speculation is that the K10 to Bulldozer performance increase will be larger than the Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge performance increase.
As for AMD's 2011 desktop products, they don't look quite as good to me as their server and Fusion products, so the iMac might stay with Intel in 2011.
Why do you think Apple will move to use AMD exclusively?
I neither said Apple will or should move to AMD, or that it will or should be exclusive. In fact, I stated a scenario as to how they could introduce AMD into their line using Intel processors.
I neither said Apple will or should move to AMD, or that it will or should be exclusive exclusive. In fact, I stated a scenario as to how they could introduce AMD into their line using Intel processors.
hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.
Comments
It's funny, your comment infers that notebook-grade components should be less expensive than their desktop-grade counterparts. Note that in computing when you go to smaller, denser and more power efficient you end up paying a premium for parts. This is why no laptop is ever less expensive and more powerful than a desktop.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
Everything you are stating is coming from you perspective. You may as well say "I don't like all in one system"
The Macintosh started out as an All in One design. The iMac has been a perennial best seller. Mac users generally are don't care what's in the box. We do here on AI because we're Geeks, Enthusiasts or Pros. I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone about their Mac and started trying to figure out what model they have via their specs and they don't have a clue. The specs never mattered to them.
Apple sells Macs based on what you do. They don't have to highlight the speeds and feeds because their justification for premium pricing is the design of OS and casing.
So in this case it really doesn't matter on if there's Intel Inside or AMD inside. It doesn't matter if the GPU is AMD or Nvidia. Apple's going to hit a certain price/performance mix and deliver their product.
I am says apple does not have a desktop system at any where near what you can build / buy.
Of course they don't. I can buy a desktop system for under $400 that is more powerful and has more capacity than most if not all notebooks for at least $600, maybe even $800.
What OEM PC does sell for less than one you can build? That is a silly strawman.
And PEOPLE do not like all in one systems with the screen build in and even then you are looking at $1200 dual cores with on board video.
Yet Apple is the only OEM that appears to be growing in desktop sales while everyone else is dropping out. Do you honestly think that it's all Mac Pros not iMacs or Mac minis?
As hmurchison hit on, it's not about getting a better spec sheet, it's about getting a machine that is best for your needs. You may not understand why a person would not want to build their own PC, why they want a PC that has quality service and support from one vendor, or why someone wants an complete system, but the fact is that people obviously do. Why do you think notebooks are growing while desktops are shrinking in consumer market YoY? Do you think all these people are traveling more? No, they just want something simple that works without a rat's next of cables to deal with.
The days of huge tower with stickers and neon lights to show off your HW is no longer in vogue. Most people aren't trying to impress their friends with a spec sheet, they just want a machine that works the way they expect it to.
Mac users generally are don't care what's in the box. We do here on AI because we're Geeks, Enthusiasts or Pros.
I'd say that Mac users care about performance more than the "geeks" give them credit for. I think that Mac users on the whole just look at other performance aspect than just the CPU clockrate and GPU shaders.
One example is battery life. People have been complaining that Apple didn't use Core-i7 last year when other OEMs offered them and are still complaining that they are only dual-core when last year's Core-i7s were quad-core. Apple is screwing us! Yet they are ignoring the 45W to 55W TDP and the fact that these machines don't do so well on battery power.
Going against everything Joe has stated, I was going to get a 15" MBP with this release but the new 13" MBP looks more ideal as it has a longer battery life. 11-25% more battery life may not seems like much but if that GPU kicks on in the larger models that number drops considerably.
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.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
I don't want to rely on more ifs. Intel has a great product, and we know they can supply it. When they have a delay, I don't worry, because I know it will be short. With AMD, it could be years.
In addition, some of the most frequent talk in the microprocessor industry is what AMD s losing by no longer having their own manufacturing. Intel developed the best processes in the world because they control every bit of it. They have their program which duplicates chip plants almost down to the finest dust particle. What does AMD have now? Nothing!
Both Nvidia and ATI know what problems you can get into using someone elses' manufacturing. Look at the problems TMSC continually has.
As Apple's sale continue to rise between 25 to 40% a year, I don't see how they can afford to take the chance that the far smaller AMD, with no guaranteed manufacturing capabilities will always be able to meet their needs. We hopefully remember the problems they had, and WHY the went to Intel rather than AMD, as some thought they would.
I hope these talks, if they are real, are about gpus rather than cpus.
AMD's entire history has been based of "ifs". If they only came out with this on time. If only the speeds were higher. If the power requirements were lower. If, if, if.
Intel was in the same shoe. Have you already forgotten the P4/D days? If it weren't for AMD licensing their technology, we would not have seen intel core2 platform.
Either way, we've seen IBM, MOTO, INTC, and AMD fumbling through here and there. It seems the table is turning and AMD may be taking the crown back for next few years to come. Apple took INTC's hand when intel was rising and it does make sense for apple to do the same with AMD this time around.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
Intel had a good ride for about last 5 years, and AMD had ruled prior to that with AMD64 and X2 in the windows market. It seems AMD has come around and will become dominant soon. Intel's current road map demonstrates lack of availability of Gulftown/32nm chips, since intel is planing to scale only upto 10% of product line to 32nm by the year end and 5% more for the following year.
It doesn't sound like you're talking about notebook processors in any regard. Just having the fastest chip per dollar won't make AMD dominate in any realistic sense. Without being able to compete with Intel on power and efficiency we're going to continue to see Intel stale their notebook releases and keep their prices high.
It's not as if AMD is going to be horrible in battery life this year.
image: http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...009/danube.jpg
There are few things to consider IF we do assume that Apple is in talks with AMD, that the talks are for CPUs and that these CPUs are for notebooks.
For starters, maybe Apple is looking at AMD as a possible future partner for CPUs based on their roadmap. It seems that a lot of people are assuming it will be fairly quick but perhaps Apple is looking to set something up for 2011 or 2012. No harm in talking, right. Another aspect is Apple looking to differentiate their Mac line even more. As Apple grows their line has to grow or they will continue to be farther and farther behind other vendors when it comes to new chips.
There are still plenty of people happy with Opteron based workstations though Intel's made up a lot of ground here with 5000 series Xeons.
It makes me wonder if Apple would want to phase in AMD at the lowend (Mac mini, Macbook) and see how things go and if all goes well 2011 is a larger kickoff with AMD getting in at the Mac Pro level as well.
There are still plenty of people happy with Opteron based workstations though Intel's made up a lot of ground here with 5000 series Xeons.
That sounds an intelligent way to introduce it. There is also the possibility that new products that aren't Macs come come to be using inexpensive yet powerful AMD chips. I think an Apple-branded Home Server is needed and would be quite popular. While that might be best served by A4 with iPhone OS sans Cocoa Touch, my point is that there are plenty of possibilities for growth to consider outside of the current line up.
Why do you think Apple will move to use AMD exclusively?
If this does happen I think it'll be to use AMD cpu/gpu products in machines that rely on integrated graphics.
Unless AMD has cpus that'll outperform Sandy Bridge, and that appears unlikely from what I've read but one never knows, I don't see Apple moving to an AMD cpus in all the Apple products.
Unless AMD has cpus that'll outperform Sandy Bridge, and that appears unlikely from what I've read but one never knows, I don't see Apple moving to an AMD cpus in all the Apple products.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
Core-for-core, AMD is far behind and may still be behind with Bulldozer. But AMD's cores are smaller and that can lead to more cores for the same price. They could also have more cores for the same TDP. Those methods can reduce Intel's total performance advantage, at least for multithreaded apps.
I don't expect AMD to gain every lead on Intel with Bulldozer.
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
If they did, however, it would mean that AMD showed them working silicon of Bulldozer, Bobcat and more that blew Apple away.
So why would you use that on a Mac Pro? The iMac might be interesting but an i7 iMac is a performance powerhouse and very nearly a perfect machine IMO.
The people that buy Mac Pros generally can afford and demand the best in performance. I don't see that changing. Do you?
If 16 Bulldozer cores > 8 Sandy Bridge cores then that may mean Bulldozer's the way to go. Magny-cours trades blows with Westmere and current speculation is that the K10 to Bulldozer performance increase will be larger than the Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge performance increase.
As for AMD's 2011 desktop products, they don't look quite as good to me as their server and Fusion products, so the iMac might stay with Intel in 2011.
Solip and Murch,
Why do you think Apple will move to use AMD exclusively?
I neither said Apple will or should move to AMD, or that it will or should be exclusive. In fact, I stated a scenario as to how they could introduce AMD into their line using Intel processors.
I neither said Apple will or should move to AMD, or that it will or should be exclusive exclusive. In fact, I stated a scenario as to how they could introduce AMD into their line using Intel processors.
OK. I misunderstood you and Murch.
OK. I misunderstood you and Murch.
hmurchison pointed out that they have a roadmap that could very well be competitive to Intel's mobile line. I followed up with another graph detailing some of that. Any advancements AMD can bring to their mobile platform is good for Mac users regardless if Apple adopts them or not.