AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 159
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    "why does everybody always correct me? "



    'coz they know you'll bite ?



    oh - and great rant, btw.
  • Reply 122 of 159
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Catman4d2


    "Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen"



    why does everybody always correct me? this is the most pc anal retenant frikin mb i have ever been on... humor doesnt have to be accurate it just has to be silly ironic or humorous,people who are fans of george carlin will get that one... he would say that often during his early standups oh excuse me "stage performances" im gonna sneak over to a few you peoples houses and wipe my ass with your toothbrushes...



    this message board just is not what it used to be. bow go ahead and bash me for my spelling and caps or what the fuck ever.....



    your all so wonderfully reknown with knowledge about all the wonderful things that dont make a damn or wont even two years from now.... every frikin post i make is torn apart and for the negative.. crap man ive been on the internet since the early box modems and green and black screens i think i know how to make a somewhat cohesive post.



    BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER



    "NO... "DEATH RAY IS BETTER" DIE DIE DIE



    DID I MENTION THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS AND ENEMA?





    Dude, chill out. Smoke a J and relax.
  • Reply 123 of 159
    I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how long this thread is. The AMD/Intel rivallry is nowhere strong than between "fanboys". Fortunately you can bet that the engineers and business guys at Apple are more rational about it.



    Doubters notwithstanding, Jobs said last year that they had looked at the Intel roadmap and had been impressed enough by it to jump from PPC. Turns out this wasn't that hard because IBM and Freescale were all but ignoring Apple's demands for what it needed. Now, a little over a year later, Apple has completed its second Mac ISA transition with remarkable smoothness... and we see the on-ramp of the roadmap that Intel showed Mr Jobs. The Core architecture is very impressive and suits Apple's needs very well. I am also quite certain that Intel showed Apple upcoming technology even further beyond what is now public knowledge, and no doubt talked to them about how their 45nm (and beyond) migration is being handled.



    The "AMD chief"'s comment is that Apple will eventually use AMD chips, and this is necessarily predicated on his optimistic public outlook on AMD's future. If he did not say something like that then people would probably ask why he wasn't look at Apple's business. The answer would be "because AMD can't compete". If he is correct and AMD does get back into a competitive performance, performance/watt, price/performance, and complete solution situation relative to Intel... then sure, I would expect the guys at Apple to evaluate this option.



    Currently, however, AMD is not in this position (from Apple's perspective) and in the short term (1-2 years) these doesn't seem to be any publicly known information suggesting that this will change. I'm sure AMD will catch up with where Intel currently is in that timeframe, but between the two companies I expect to see more surprises coming from Intel's R&D labs than from AMD's. In the longer term these things are very hard to predict in detail, but usually in the chip industry the guy with the most money is the better bet -- especially when he also seems to have recently seen the light and undergone an enormous course correction (i.e. like Intel just did). But never say never, especially since that keeps Intel working harder.
  • Reply 124 of 159
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Well said programmer -

    I want AMD to catch up just as much as I want Intel to keep ahead > tech up, prices down - that has to be good for us.



    My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.
  • Reply 125 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Catman4d2


    BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER



    ROFLMAO That sums up a lot of threads quite well You just missed out on WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A NON-CASTRATED MID TOWER BLAH BLAH BLAH WHY CANT I USE ANY GPU IN APPLE BLAH BLAH APPLE TAX BLAH BLAH APPLE MONOPOLY BLAH BLAH OS X FOR ALL PCS BLAH BLAH APPLE GPUS SUCK OKAY GO FRACK OFF PC GAMERS BLAH BLAH NO CONSOLE GAMING IS BETTER NINTENDO WII IS BETTER THAN PS3 BLAH BLAH XBOX360 IS BETTER BLAH BLAH IPOD VIDEO WIDESCREEN ARGHGH APPLE DVR NOW NO I DONT NEED IT I GOT TIVO BLAH BLAH IPOD PHONE WHEN ARGFH BLAH BLAH CANT WAIT FOR MY MACBOOK/ MACBOOKPRO/ IMAC TO SHIP IT JUST LEFT SHANGHAI I CANT WAIT SO LONG WTF BLAH BLAH BLAH... I'm not correcting you, I'm just adding to the fun of your rant. Well, for me it was hella fun reading it.



    BTW, I have never really hallucinated smoking pot back a few years. I did have one session where I was super inspired and drew on chalk all over my wall on how "Buddha closed the loop" (deconvolution of X dimensions into pure nothingness in preparation for return to God). Yes, good times Also I did have one session where I was just bundled up in my bed shivering a lot and going WTF



    Having not done mushrooms or LSD or hallucinogenics I don't know what hallucinating is like. Pot and Ecstasy have been a real trip in and of themselves. Funnily, five or six years ago a few tokes never really made me "feel" the effects of pot really. I don't inhale fully because I'm slightly asthmatic and when mixed with tobacco I cough a lot. However 2003-2004 pot did really affect me. Fairly good buds...??



    My favourite drug at the end of the day is Jaegermeister. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaegermeister ...Only alcoholic/drug thing where I actually lost sense of time once or twice. This one time at band camp... heh. Actually it was this one time after leaving a bar back to a friends place we were all drunk and dancing around and I had several shots of Jaeger, then I looked at the clock, it was 1am, then the next time, I look at the clock, it was 4am...!!! Wooo it was a little freaky and I ended up making out with a coworker 10 years older than me. Then we just cuddled. Really.



    Have been drug and alcohol(only a few sips once every few weeks in social contexts) free for about a year and a half. Would be a great detox except I am taking psychiatric "establishment" medicine
  • Reply 126 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RobM


    ...My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.



    Good enough for me for now. The fact that all three new-gen consoles have separate CPU/GPU architectures is comforting to some degree.



    Also, since GPUs in PCs and Macs (well, more so in PC gaming) are becoming increasingly as or more important than the CPU, the wide range of PC GPUs is also comforting to some degree. Although, that is also a two-horse race.



    Again, I mentioned before, it's a hardware-software oligopoly in computing today. Choose from a matrix of Intel, AMD, ATI, nVidia, Windows, OSX, Linux.



    Not like buying a car (lots of choices) or filling up petrol/ gasoline where you can choose from a ton of places and even add ethanol to the mix or get a hybrid car, etc.
  • Reply 127 of 159
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    I agree - it seems to be working in our favour at the moment. Long may it last.



    In my convoluted mind though, I can see in the not too distant future, a couple of the jockeys having a talk before they line up to start.



    Also from your matrix - 2 are really one, ATI/AMD.
  • Reply 128 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    My favourite drug at the end of the day is Jaegermeister.



    Oh dear god I hate Jaeger.
  • Reply 129 of 159
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Oh dear god I hate Jaeger.



    <ot derail>

    Whassamatter with you boy ! - one for breakfast'll put hairs on your chest.

    Or, have you been hanging out in some dingy bar and drinking to excess for no good reason in the vain hope it'll impress some waitress ?

    <ot derail>
  • Reply 130 of 159
    I personally have halucinated the same damned brady bunch rerun for about 14 years now,and i dont take any drugs!!!!!!



    its the one where greg gets high and changes the tires on his bike.



  • Reply 131 of 159
  • Reply 132 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,981member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros


    IThey can? I thought only Xeon chips supported dual FSBs. The problem is that they still have to go through the MCH which, as far as I know, will be a bottle neck.



    Yes, I mean the Xeons, which are the ones that will have the need for better memory access. Xeons are more often used for servers where constant access to many smaller randomly placed files will find memory access to be more important that simply doing calculations.



    Quote:

    Are we really sure on each process shrink drawing more power? Intel always insist on almost doubling the transistor count with each shrink, so I think that plays a large part. If you just keep the same chip, you would most likely reach a lower thermal envelope and reach higher clock speeds as a result. Transistor leakage is a problem that increases with each shrink though, but how much of an effect has it?



    Well, the process shrink for their older designs kept the exact same designs. They didn't even raise speeds on the new Core chips, when they could have.



    The total power is not rising, but the energy used per square mm is. So, while total power input, and heat output, is less, the power and heat is greater over a smaller area. That's the problem they are facing, and why they are reluctant to raise the frequency right now. New designs are helping to mitigate these problems, but not totally.
  • Reply 133 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,981member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    I think it is a major technical challenge in going to 45nm and 32nm or lower. AFAIK.

    STUPID ELECTRONS!!! We need to find another subatomic particle to use in CPUs.



    They don't need new particles. The same old particles will continue to work just fine.



    The problem is related to the fact that we use charge to keep data in memory, or to do calculations. Charge uses energy to retain a bit, or to change a bit. The faster a bit changes, the more energy is required.



    But, now they are learning to use "spin". The field is called "Spintronics".



    In theory, no energy need be expended with this concept. In reality, some energy is always expended. But the amount of energy needed is far less.



    This is how they are intending to extend the parameters down below the 20 - 30 nm levels. If they can get complex circuits working in time, which it looks as though they have a good chance of doing.
  • Reply 134 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,981member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RobM


    Well said programmer -

    I want AMD to catch up just as much as I want Intel to keep ahead > tech up, prices down - that has to be good for us.



    My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.



    It is such a vastly expensive venture to build a new cpu chip manufacturing process line these days—billions of dollars. Each new process reduction raises the price of those fabs by 50% or more. Most chip manufacturing companies are building them in conjunction with at least one other partner.



    It's why AMD is so far behind Intel and IBM in going to 300 mm wafers, and in going to 65 nm fabs.



    A company needs to make such a large commitment to this that few are willing to do so these days.
  • Reply 135 of 159
    Hey, of course AMD will be available in Macs in a few years. Intel is supported officially, Windows is supported officially (via bootcamp), you can use a Microsoft XBOX usb controller in a mac, etc. etc. Aside from the exclusivity of OSX, mac is slowly becoming more of a packaging/distribution brand than a distinct hardware/software entity.
  • Reply 136 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,981member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass


    Hey, of course AMD will be available in Macs in a few years. Intel is supported officially, Windows is supported officially (via bootcamp), you can use a Microsoft XBOX usb controller in a mac, etc. etc. Aside from the exclusivity of OSX, mac is slowly becoming more of a packaging/distribution brand than a distinct hardware/software entity.



    Apple would have to have a reason to do this. Dell is going to AMD chips for a few lines because they are sometimes less expensive. When you sell $350 computers, even a $5 difference in the cost of the cpu can make the difference.



    They also sell 4 and eight socket servers, where Opterons still have an advantage.



    But, where does Apple fit in here? While Dell might move more to the cost/performance model, Apple is more in the performance/cost model, where the first part is the more important.



    AMD now has a bit of work to do. Unless they have more to offer Apple than Intel does, the will get nowhere.



    The ATI acquisition will help somewhat, as now they will be able to offer a good line of chipsets as well.



    But it isn't nearly enough.
  • Reply 137 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    ...But it isn't nearly enough.



    Not in 2007, certainly. We'll see what happens in 2008. 15 months in IT-land is actually, quite some time to re-revolutionize things.
  • Reply 138 of 159
    If I had a choice between a current AMD chip and the Core Duo 2 in a Mac, I'd pick the Intel everytime. Of course AMD is going to say that "eventually" Apple will use AMD microsprocessors. That way he can lie to the shareholders that they may just be in discussions with Apple - but it wouldn't make me want to go out and buy one if they did.



    Core Duo 2 for me all the way. Then Core Duo Quadro next.
  • Reply 139 of 159
    Sorry to be picky, but Dell only sells up to 4 sockets in their servers. This has always been the case because they buy Intel-based (in the past) "white boxes" and re-label them as Dell's. Please see this link for their largest server:



    http://tinyurl.com/z6ftj



    For larger than 4 sockets, you need to go to NEC, Unisys, HP, Fujitsu or other less-known vendors.



    Thanks -









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross




    They also sell 4 and eight socket servers, where Opterons still have an advantage.




  • Reply 140 of 159
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,981member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    Not in 2007, certainly. We'll see what happens in 2008. 15 months in IT-land is actually, quite some time to re-revolutionize things.



    It's hard to say.



    But people should remember that in 2009, I think April, but that month could be wrong (I'm too lazy to look it up right now8) ), all broadcasters MUST give up their analog frequencies, and only broadcast in digital. By that time all Tv's sold must have H def tuners, at least down to some small size. There is supposed to be a program to supply digital tuners to people who have older models.



    This will be a major impedus to these HD conversions. By then, something will be done. But before then, it will have to be proven that Apple, and others, are convinced that a large enough population can actually view, in HD, HD downloads.



    Right now, it's a guessing game.
Sign In or Register to comment.