AMD has lost it already when Apple didn't make the jump this time. Sandybridge isn't bad, it is merely lacking the software investment in drivers, which Intel is working on, abit slowly. IvyBridge 's Graphics is good, and Haswell will be better.
The advantage of AMD's graphics department will shrink and the CPU advantage is widening everyday, not to mention the power improvement from 22nm node.
And no, Bulldozer even with Software Optimization is still a pathetic piece of crap in performance / watt compare to new Xeon E5.
Not to mention some Steep discount from Intel if Apple ever really wanted to offer AMD.
Intel designs Apples motherboards. Who designed an AMD board?
AMD would have trouble delivering upwards 1 million APU/GPU that Apple needs. This was the main reason why the deal fell thru: AMD/Global foundries could not guarantee enough supply.
1) Apple signed an exclusive agreement to intel for 5 years that ended between mid 2010 and early 2011
2) AMD and Apple have had meeting
3) Apple/Steve was very angry in Intel for Intel withdrawal of Nvidia motherboard license.
4) Prototype Macbook Air with ARM exists.
5) A6/ ARM15 CPU will have about the same performance as Liano, except graphics. Its more fun for Apple to pay 25 dollar for a SoC then 200-400 dollar for AMD motherboard + APU.
AMD have no feature. During all AMDs lifetime the company have lost almost 2 billion. The short times that AMD have had better CPUs then Intel is because of external factors (NexGen/Alpha).
AMDs market cap is about 5 billion. Apple could buy AMD for less then 1 Q profit. But AMD is not worth it. (especially since the X86 license have to be approved by Intel if AMD sells it)
This is unrelated to this topic but I did not know where to post it. The fonts on all the screens are different today and very hard to read. Is anyone else having this problem? I hope it is a minor glitch and not permanent.
However, Apple is said to still be very interested in working with AMD. "Sources indicate that ARM CPUs are still on tap as soon as the 64-bit chips show up," Demerjian wrote.
Can anyone explain why we should pay attention to an analyst who doesn't know the difference between AMD and ARM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
Wasn't Apple considering on developing an A6 Dual and Quad core processor and sticking one of those into a future Mac Book Air?
Don't accept rumors at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
This is highly unlikely.
Intel designs Apples motherboards. Who designed an AMD board?
I don't know if Intel design's Apple's mother boards or not. They design the chip sets, but I think Apple designs their own boards. Designing a board is relatively trivial compared to designing a chip set. That won't be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
AMD would have trouble delivering upwards 1 million APU/GPU that Apple needs. This was the main reason why the deal fell thru: AMD/Global foundries could not guarantee enough supply.
AMD currently supplies about 1/5 of the world's CPUs. Given that Apple's market share is around 5% worldwide, AMD can make enough chips for Apple and still have plenty left over to sell. Probably stop selling the cheapest garbage chips, though.
5) A6/ ARM15 CPU will have about the same performance as Liano, except graphics. Its more fun for Apple to pay 25 dollar for a SoC then 200-400 dollar for AMD motherboard + APU.
Especially when they won't lower the price of the hardware by a similar amount
I believe that since the Mac's shift to Intel (or maybe even before), Apple has wisely chosen to develop parallel versions of the Mac OS that run on different CPU architectures. That way they're less susceptible to the kind of problems they had with PowerPC. Hell, they might even have a copy of Lion running on PowerPC hardware in one of their labs. Just in case.
I'd agree that would be very logical. The rumor may have just exaggerated on nothing more than a skunk works parallel development. It is excellent news if your theory is correct IMHO as it keeps Apple free from supplier blackmail or failures.
Why would apple leave intel? IF you believe all the articles intel pretty much does what apple says. From sandy bridge on a big chunk of the cpu design supposedly was influenced by apple.
Apple likes to control every aspect of their products. Buying AMD would let them own the chip at the heart of future Macs.
The keyword is control, not own.
Furthermore, Apple has been down the road of *controlling* the microprocessor in the theirs before - the PowerPC. It is a different world now. Likewise, the mobile space is a different world, compelling Apple to acquire P.A. Semi and Intrinsity. The same need is arguably not present in the PC world.
AMD is not as power efficient as the Intel processors. For mobile chips, their CPUs are just fine consider how many tasks these days are GPU limited not CPU limited. Given how Intel is moving w/their power efficiency and their GPUs catching up, I think the window for AMD is probably closing quickly, unless they make a pretty major leap.
You do realize that AMD invented the i86_64 architecture that Macs run on these days? Going to AMD is not at all like going to ARM or some other non i86 architecture.
Even today AMD innovates in ways that Intel can't for whatever reason. Bulldozer is one example and their entire Fusion line is a far better approach to integrated devices than what Intel has on offer. It really is to bad that AMD could deliver from the manufacturing angle. I suspect that for most users a Fusion based AIR would have been a better overall deal.
Why? Well the far better GPU. A GPU that supports OpenCL and other technologies that make a difference on the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449
I believe that since the Mac's shift to Intel (or maybe even before), Apple has wisely chosen to develop parallel versions of the Mac OS that run on different CPU architectures. That way they're less susceptible to the kind of problems they had with PowerPC. Hell, they might even have a copy of Lion running on PowerPC hardware in one of their labs. Just in case.
The evidence is clear that they have the OS running on i86 hardware and on ARM hardware. I kinda doubt the PowerPC is much loved at Apple these days but I wouldn't be surprised. More so I suspect that they have the OS running on Sparc and possibly other hardware. If for nothing else building the OS for multiple architectures prevents the OS from becoming difficult to port over time.
As far as the Apple using AMD CPU rumors go, all I can say is thank God! If you read anything about the Fusion or Llano (I like to call "Llame") processors they're junk.
This is inflammatory BS. Llano is a damn good processor.
Quote:
Their CPU or power consumption benchmarks are nowhere near as good as Intel's.
Again BS. Llano has been shown to actually run cooler that Intel hardware, especially where the GPU is used heavily. Intels Sandy Bridge can run extremely hot and throttle its performance fairly quickly.
Quote:
The only thing they have going for them is the GPU performance but starting with Ivy Bridge Intel will start to have decent integrated GPU performance as well, on par at least with AMD.
Ivy Bridge doesn't really look all that great GPU wise and frankly AMD will be able to easily deal with it. At best the GPU has been shown to be 60% faster in one synthetic benchmark vs Sandy Bridge. on average it is barely 30% faster.
Quote:
As far as the ARM rumors go, I believe this one actually. Apple didn't buy PA Semi or Intrynsity for nothing. Apple dreams big and I wouldn't doubt if they want their entire consumer line of machines to be all ARM.
You dis AMD chips and then go on about ARM when ARM can't even come close to the performance of AMD's CPU cores.
Given that I dl believe that the entire story with respect to ARM at Apple has yet to be written. However that is the future, today Llano would make a very nice processor for an AIR type machine or even a Mini. In fact I was really hoping for a Fusion based Mini with four cores. Why? Well again today performance involves more than just the CPU cores.
Quote:
The 64-BIT ARM processors are only 2 to 3 years away. This would be a great move; have all their "consumer" Macs running ARM & their "pro" Macs running Intel for the real high performance stuff.
Nope; it would be an entirely stupid move mostly due to binary compatibility issues.
Really people here seem to think that AMD has this odd architecture that is somehow difficult to support. The facts are completely different AMD invented the i86_64 architecture at the heart of Intel processors today, it isn't like we are talking an entirely different instruction set..
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
I wouldn't think that AMD could hold it's end when it comes to supplying Apple with enough CPU's and GPU's.
This is likely the only reason AMD did not get slotted in. AMD would have allowed Apple to offer a machine at a lower price or higher profit or both, while performing just as well as the Intel machines.
Quote:
Intel is way larger and has more supply capability. But if they did have AMD MacBook Air prototype's running OS X I wonder then if OS X secretly has the AMD support?
I would think it is a certainty that Apple does have OS X running on AMD hardware and most likely regularly tests such hardware.
Quote:
Yes ATI is part of Apple witch is actually AMD now. But thats as far as Apple is willing to take it. Supply and demand is the key.
I don't buy this either. Apple will go with AMD if it can offer up the right value for the machine in question. Well that and the chip is available in the volumes Apple needs. If you look at AMD's issues over the last quarter, its biggest issue has been actually building the chips. This has become a very public issue for AMD which they are working very hard to address. Llano has been well accepted in the market place and would be a very strong seller for AMD if they had the volume.
Comments
The advantage of AMD's graphics department will shrink and the CPU advantage is widening everyday, not to mention the power improvement from 22nm node.
And no, Bulldozer even with Software Optimization is still a pathetic piece of crap in performance / watt compare to new Xeon E5.
Not to mention some Steep discount from Intel if Apple ever really wanted to offer AMD.
Intel designs Apples motherboards. Who designed an AMD board?
AMD would have trouble delivering upwards 1 million APU/GPU that Apple needs. This was the main reason why the deal fell thru: AMD/Global foundries could not guarantee enough supply.
1) Apple signed an exclusive agreement to intel for 5 years that ended between mid 2010 and early 2011
2) AMD and Apple have had meeting
3) Apple/Steve was very angry in Intel for Intel withdrawal of Nvidia motherboard license.
4) Prototype Macbook Air with ARM exists.
5) A6/ ARM15 CPU will have about the same performance as Liano, except graphics. Its more fun for Apple to pay 25 dollar for a SoC then 200-400 dollar for AMD motherboard + APU.
AMD have no feature. During all AMDs lifetime the company have lost almost 2 billion. The short times that AMD have had better CPUs then Intel is because of external factors (NexGen/Alpha).
AMDs market cap is about 5 billion. Apple could buy AMD for less then 1 Q profit. But AMD is not worth it. (especially since the X86 license have to be approved by Intel if AMD sells it)
This is unrelated to this topic but I did not know where to post it. The fonts on all the screens are different today and very hard to read. Is anyone else having this problem? I hope it is a minor glitch and not permanent.
However, Apple is said to still be very interested in working with AMD. "Sources indicate that ARM CPUs are still on tap as soon as the 64-bit chips show up," Demerjian wrote.
Can anyone explain why we should pay attention to an analyst who doesn't know the difference between AMD and ARM?
Wasn't Apple considering on developing an A6 Dual and Quad core processor and sticking one of those into a future Mac Book Air?
Don't accept rumors at face value.
This is highly unlikely.
Intel designs Apples motherboards. Who designed an AMD board?
I don't know if Intel design's Apple's mother boards or not. They design the chip sets, but I think Apple designs their own boards. Designing a board is relatively trivial compared to designing a chip set. That won't be a problem.
AMD would have trouble delivering upwards 1 million APU/GPU that Apple needs. This was the main reason why the deal fell thru: AMD/Global foundries could not guarantee enough supply.
AMD currently supplies about 1/5 of the world's CPUs. Given that Apple's market share is around 5% worldwide, AMD can make enough chips for Apple and still have plenty left over to sell. Probably stop selling the cheapest garbage chips, though.
5) A6/ ARM15 CPU will have about the same performance as Liano, except graphics. Its more fun for Apple to pay 25 dollar for a SoC then 200-400 dollar for AMD motherboard + APU.
Especially when they won't lower the price of the hardware by a similar amount
I believe that since the Mac's shift to Intel (or maybe even before), Apple has wisely chosen to develop parallel versions of the Mac OS that run on different CPU architectures. That way they're less susceptible to the kind of problems they had with PowerPC. Hell, they might even have a copy of Lion running on PowerPC hardware in one of their labs. Just in case.
I'd agree that would be very logical. The rumor may have just exaggerated on nothing more than a skunk works parallel development. It is excellent news if your theory is correct IMHO as it keeps Apple free from supplier blackmail or failures.
Why would apple give that up?
Apple reportedly prepped AMD-powered MacBook Air, dropped it at last minute
And this is related to "Current Mac Hardware" how exactly? Should not it be in "General Discussion" or even "Future Apple Hardware"?
Apple likes to control every aspect of their products. Buying AMD would let them own the chip at the heart of future Macs.
The keyword is control, not own.
Furthermore, Apple has been down the road of *controlling* the microprocessor in the theirs before - the PowerPC. It is a different world now. Likewise, the mobile space is a different world, compelling Apple to acquire P.A. Semi and Intrinsity. The same need is arguably not present in the PC world.
Even today AMD innovates in ways that Intel can't for whatever reason. Bulldozer is one example and their entire Fusion line is a far better approach to integrated devices than what Intel has on offer. It really is to bad that AMD could deliver from the manufacturing angle. I suspect that for most users a Fusion based AIR would have been a better overall deal.
Why? Well the far better GPU. A GPU that supports OpenCL and other technologies that make a difference on the Mac.
I believe that since the Mac's shift to Intel (or maybe even before), Apple has wisely chosen to develop parallel versions of the Mac OS that run on different CPU architectures. That way they're less susceptible to the kind of problems they had with PowerPC. Hell, they might even have a copy of Lion running on PowerPC hardware in one of their labs. Just in case.
The evidence is clear that they have the OS running on i86 hardware and on ARM hardware. I kinda doubt the PowerPC is much loved at Apple these days but I wouldn't be surprised. More so I suspect that they have the OS running on Sparc and possibly other hardware. If for nothing else building the OS for multiple architectures prevents the OS from becoming difficult to port over time.
DAve
As far as the Apple using AMD CPU rumors go, all I can say is thank God! If you read anything about the Fusion or Llano (I like to call "Llame") processors they're junk.
This is inflammatory BS. Llano is a damn good processor.
Their CPU or power consumption benchmarks are nowhere near as good as Intel's.
Again BS. Llano has been shown to actually run cooler that Intel hardware, especially where the GPU is used heavily. Intels Sandy Bridge can run extremely hot and throttle its performance fairly quickly.
The only thing they have going for them is the GPU performance but starting with Ivy Bridge Intel will start to have decent integrated GPU performance as well, on par at least with AMD.
Ivy Bridge doesn't really look all that great GPU wise and frankly AMD will be able to easily deal with it. At best the GPU has been shown to be 60% faster in one synthetic benchmark vs Sandy Bridge. on average it is barely 30% faster.
As far as the ARM rumors go, I believe this one actually. Apple didn't buy PA Semi or Intrynsity for nothing. Apple dreams big and I wouldn't doubt if they want their entire consumer line of machines to be all ARM.
You dis AMD chips and then go on about ARM when ARM can't even come close to the performance of AMD's CPU cores.
Given that I dl believe that the entire story with respect to ARM at Apple has yet to be written. However that is the future, today Llano would make a very nice processor for an AIR type machine or even a Mini. In fact I was really hoping for a Fusion based Mini with four cores. Why? Well again today performance involves more than just the CPU cores.
The 64-BIT ARM processors are only 2 to 3 years away. This would be a great move; have all their "consumer" Macs running ARM & their "pro" Macs running Intel for the real high performance stuff.
Nope; it would be an entirely stupid move mostly due to binary compatibility issues.
I wouldn't think that AMD could hold it's end when it comes to supplying Apple with enough CPU's and GPU's.
This is likely the only reason AMD did not get slotted in. AMD would have allowed Apple to offer a machine at a lower price or higher profit or both, while performing just as well as the Intel machines.
Intel is way larger and has more supply capability. But if they did have AMD MacBook Air prototype's running OS X I wonder then if OS X secretly has the AMD support?
I would think it is a certainty that Apple does have OS X running on AMD hardware and most likely regularly tests such hardware.
Yes ATI is part of Apple witch is actually AMD now. But thats as far as Apple is willing to take it. Supply and demand is the key.
I don't buy this either. Apple will go with AMD if it can offer up the right value for the machine in question. Well that and the chip is available in the volumes Apple needs. If you look at AMD's issues over the last quarter, its biggest issue has been actually building the chips. This has become a very public issue for AMD which they are working very hard to address. Llano has been well accepted in the market place and would be a very strong seller for AMD if they had the volume.
Apple decided not to release move forward with the machine
Doesn't anyone check these things?
So it would seem early production problems scuppered the deal.
It is easy to imagine Intel never knew this when they bent over backwards for a 'last minute coup'.