Why does AI continue to post their predictions on its front page? Forget G5 PowerBooks - back when we were all waiting for those, DigiTimes was predicting that G5 iBooks were imminent.
I wonder is Apple has a version of OS X running on AMD chips? In fact, Same for Sun's chips and others as well..
- Mark
AMD's x86 chips, from a machine language perspective, are totally compatible clones of Intel's IA-32 chips up to and including the Core microarchitecture. (Specific implementation details that will affect how long it takes for the chip to complete a given operation are different, so performance is not identical. But, given enough time, both chips will react to a given set of binary instructions in the same way.)
Similarly, AMD's AMD64 chips use almost the exact same instruction set as Intel's EM64T including the Core 2 and 64-bit Xeon. Most compilers in the market target both machines simultaneously, and will automatically omit the handful of instructions that do exist which behave differently on the two architectures unless specific flags are set for extremely aggressive optimization.
In fact, Intel's original 64-bit architecture, the IA64 used by Itanium, failed in consumer markets in no small part because of its poor support for legacy 32-bit software.
AMD invented the x86_64 64-bit instruction set, which allows seamless interoperation of 64-bit processes alongside legacy 32-bit and protected-mode 16-bit processes (as long as the OS supports it). Intel subsequently copied the architecture, and incorporated into its Core 2 and 64-bit Xeon processors.
Getting OSX running on an AMD64 chip would be relatively easy. And as long as the chip supports SSE3 (all recent AMD64's do) I'd be shocked if it would require even as much as a recompile to get most OSX applications running.
Running OSX on a Sun SPARC would be a much more fundamental shift, more akin to the PowerPC to x86 shift.
Adopting the use of AMD x86 chips now that Apple is using Intel x86 chips would be about as significant as adopting IBM's G5 after running on Motorola's G4 for so long. A bit of hardware and driver work for the motherboard, a bit of minor instruction set tweaking in the kernel, and away you go.
It also makes complete sense for Apple to be running MacOS X on dev kits with AMD processors. Will they ship an AMD based machine any time soon? I would be surprised.
Quote:
Umm how old is the AMD64 design and how long did it take Intel to finally out perform it?
Don't base anything on that observation. That it took Intel a long time to realize they took the wrong path and change their direction doesn't say anything about how fast and far they can go now that they are going in the right direction. Intel has enormous capabilities and they are ahead in the process technology. AMD is probably quaking in their boots after a couple of years of feeling cocky. If they aren't, they should be.
The Sempron 2800+ as in the screenshot supports SSE3.
That's why the picture is most likely fake... if it's a Palermo core SSE3 enabled Sempron than what BUS is running at 100 MHz? There is no FSB and the memory bus is dual pumped 166 or 200 MHz.
If it's the Socket A Throroughbred core sempron (which can run at 100 Mhz FSB) then there is no SSE support.
Yep, not gonna happen. Intel and Apple are bed buddies 4-ever! Smooches!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock
the same was said about apple and motarola, and later, apple and IBM, but I still don't think we will see AMD anytime soon
Yah well so far Intel has yet to lay in bed laughing their head off at Apple's...OK the bed reference is going south fast. Suffice it to say its been well documented that Jobs was pissed at moto. They didn't deliver jack and when they did deliver jack it was usually low yield jack.
Just out of interest Dell are knocking out cheap AMD laptops with Turion chips. What is it that it feels is worthwhile about doing this when they too were intel exclusive and indeed made this move precisely when Intel's mobile tchnology markedly moved ahead of AMD? Price alone? Or some technical reason? Whatever the combination is and however one might dismiss Dell there has to be some reason for it, so perhaps one can't simply dismiss that Apple might see a similar advantage somewheere or be confident enough to feel that a lower spec entry level or/and ultra small Mac book might be an option 6 months or more or so down the line.
Just out of interest Dell are knocking out cheap AMD laptops with Turion chips. What is it that it feels is worthwhile about doing this when they too were intel exclusive and indeed made this move precisely when Intel's mobile tchnology markedly moved ahead of AMD? Price alone? Or some technical reason? Whatever the combination is and however one might dismiss Dell there has to be some reason for it, so perhaps one can't simply dismiss that Apple might see a similar advantage somewheere or be confident enough to feel that a lower spec entry level or/and ultra small Mac book might be an option 6 months or more or so down the line.
Where's the advantage of going AMD? If you're loking for cooler and faster I think you'll be disappointed. Turion chips TDP is 35 watts. No less than C2D and higher than Core Duos. See link for details:
I wouldn't make any broad judgements based on what Dell is doing. They are making stupid moves, IMO, and that is reflected in the stock's performance. I'm not against using AMD chips in Apple machines but right now there just isn't any advantage in doing so. If and when that changes, I'm all for it.
I'm sure AMD have a lot of products coming up that they haven't talked about yet. But for now I think Intel's lineup an known roadmap looks pretty good.
Comments
SLI, Crossfire and Creative's sound chips don't appeal to most Apple Pros either. They want accuracy, not OMGFPS!! and cheesy effects.
qft.
sennen
Why does AI continue to post their predictions on its front page? Forget G5 PowerBooks - back when we were all waiting for those, DigiTimes was predicting that G5 iBooks were imminent.
I wonder is Apple has a version of OS X running on AMD chips? In fact, Same for Sun's chips and others as well..
- Mark
AMD's x86 chips, from a machine language perspective, are totally compatible clones of Intel's IA-32 chips up to and including the Core microarchitecture. (Specific implementation details that will affect how long it takes for the chip to complete a given operation are different, so performance is not identical. But, given enough time, both chips will react to a given set of binary instructions in the same way.)
Similarly, AMD's AMD64 chips use almost the exact same instruction set as Intel's EM64T including the Core 2 and 64-bit Xeon. Most compilers in the market target both machines simultaneously, and will automatically omit the handful of instructions that do exist which behave differently on the two architectures unless specific flags are set for extremely aggressive optimization.
In fact, Intel's original 64-bit architecture, the IA64 used by Itanium, failed in consumer markets in no small part because of its poor support for legacy 32-bit software.
AMD invented the x86_64 64-bit instruction set, which allows seamless interoperation of 64-bit processes alongside legacy 32-bit and protected-mode 16-bit processes (as long as the OS supports it). Intel subsequently copied the architecture, and incorporated into its Core 2 and 64-bit Xeon processors.
Getting OSX running on an AMD64 chip would be relatively easy. And as long as the chip supports SSE3 (all recent AMD64's do) I'd be shocked if it would require even as much as a recompile to get most OSX applications running.
Running OSX on a Sun SPARC would be a much more fundamental shift, more akin to the PowerPC to x86 shift.
It also makes complete sense for Apple to be running MacOS X on dev kits with AMD processors. Will they ship an AMD based machine any time soon? I would be surprised.
Umm how old is the AMD64 design and how long did it take Intel to finally out perform it?
Don't base anything on that observation. That it took Intel a long time to realize they took the wrong path and change their direction doesn't say anything about how fast and far they can go now that they are going in the right direction. Intel has enormous capabilities and they are ahead in the process technology. AMD is probably quaking in their boots after a couple of years of feeling cocky. If they aren't, they should be.
The Sempron 2800+ as in the screenshot supports SSE3.
That's why the picture is most likely fake... if it's a Palermo core SSE3 enabled Sempron than what BUS is running at 100 MHz? There is no FSB and the memory bus is dual pumped 166 or 200 MHz.
If it's the Socket A Throroughbred core sempron (which can run at 100 Mhz FSB) then there is no SSE support.
Simple as that!
------------
Wanna get the most out of your mac,
Visit: www.mostofmymac.com
Yep, not gonna happen. Intel and Apple are bed buddies 4-ever! Smooches!
the same was said about apple and motarola, and later, apple and IBM, but I still don't think we will see AMD anytime soon
Yah well so far Intel has yet to lay in bed laughing their head off at Apple's...OK the bed reference is going south fast. Suffice it to say its been well documented that Jobs was pissed at moto. They didn't deliver jack and when they did deliver jack it was usually low yield jack.
Why? Did Apple hire Rumsfeld?
Well he is looking for a new job I hear.
Well he is looking for a new job I hear.
He got good experience at spin. He'd make an excellent pr guy.
Just out of interest Dell are knocking out cheap AMD laptops with Turion chips. What is it that it feels is worthwhile about doing this when they too were intel exclusive and indeed made this move precisely when Intel's mobile tchnology markedly moved ahead of AMD? Price alone? Or some technical reason? Whatever the combination is and however one might dismiss Dell there has to be some reason for it, so perhaps one can't simply dismiss that Apple might see a similar advantage somewheere or be confident enough to feel that a lower spec entry level or/and ultra small Mac book might be an option 6 months or more or so down the line.
Where's the advantage of going AMD? If you're loking for cooler and faster I think you'll be disappointed. Turion chips TDP is 35 watts. No less than C2D and higher than Core Duos. See link for details:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13911,00.html
see link for turion vs. C2D
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2856&p=11
I wouldn't make any broad judgements based on what Dell is doing. They are making stupid moves, IMO, and that is reflected in the stock's performance. I'm not against using AMD chips in Apple machines but right now there just isn't any advantage in doing so. If and when that changes, I'm all for it.