AMD Executive's Comments Lead to Speculation of Apple Adopting Fusion Platform

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I think it's inevitable that apple will go to AMD. As it stands, apple is forced to use intel chipsets along with the terrible integrated graphics that come with them, with the core iX processors. The MB, MBA, and Mini all need something better than intel graphics. Hence why apple still uses the core2 duo in them.

Here's a theory: Early & exclusive access to Fusion.

Maybe this discussion could be linked to an existing thread https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11396676

Also, why does all the interesting news go to Page 2? This is definitely something that deserves Page 1 release IMO

Hellhammer said:

Also, why does all the interesting news go to Page 2? This is definitely something that deserves Page 1 release IMO

Click to expand...

I think it belongs on page 2. It's a manufactured story. Apple is an ATI customer. Period.

res1233 said:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I think it's inevitable that apple will go to AMD. As it stands, apple is forced to use intel chipsets along with the terrible integrated graphics that come with them, with the core iX processors. The MB, MBA, and Mini all need something better than intel graphics. Hence why apple still uses the core2 duo in them.

Here's a theory: Early & exclusive access to Fusion.

Click to expand...

I don't think Apple is really driven by product performance. Apple is all about form factor, design, features and usability. Steve loves his relationship with Intel, especially given that Intel technology initiatives can help reduce physical form factor. Intel loves that Steve is willing to commit to being on the cutting edge in integrating appropriate new technologies across the Apple product line.

Since the parties are not going to divulge details directly, is there any information about the Fusion platform that would give direct comparisons between the next Intel offering and the next AMD offering?

It makes sense these would be targeted at iMac, MacBookPro, MacBook and Mac-Mini product lines.

Someone in some thread on MR must have done this comparison already.

Besides combined CPU/GPU one should look at power consumption and multi-thread performance.

Rocketman

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of agreement with Intel that Apple won't go to their competitors for CPUs. Intel would be as mad as hell if an AMD processor turned up in a Mac.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

knightlie said:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of agreement with Intel that Apple won't go to their competitors for CPUs. Intel would be as mad as hell if an AMD processor turned up in a Mac.

Click to expand...

Intel only have themselves to blame for not letting nvidia develop chipsets for it's new CPUs or developing decent integrated graphics themselves.

i have a lenovo laptop with a i5 CPU and the intel graphics are just fine for regular Windows 7 stuff. Anandtech did an OS X benchmark and found that OS X is more finicky when it comes to 3D graphics.

intel graphics from 2 years ago can do hardware h.264 decoding with Flash unlike Mac's with 9400M's that were sold this year.

I'd love to see Apple release some AMD-based machines, particularly the Mac Pro. Given they ship with ATi GPUs (which are made by AMD) it would seem that Fusion integration is right around the corner.

That said, a large number of people feel that Intel is on top of the processor market and always will be. Personally, I see no difference in performance or capabilities even when doing a lot of intensive work such as photo editing or gaming, so the brand name isn't really an object.

I used the GMA 965 (or was it 950?) in my late 2006 MacBook for years - up til a few months ago - for everything from lots of photo editing to HD video encoding/transcoding to games, and never noticed any issues except the occasional framerate down-spike in games when rendering lots of entities...the NViDIA GT 330M chip in my new MBP works fine for all of that but at the same time, I've heard things about AMD-ATi combinations achieving much better benchmark results than Intel chips alongisde NViDIA.

Although knowing how Apple operates, it seems doubtful we'd ever see two different lines of computers at the same time...

I agree that this was a misinterpreted story. All of the Apple products shown in the presentation were machines that use ATI (now AMD) graphics solutions. There were no MacBooks or Mac Minis shown. End of line.

hvfsl said:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



Intel only have themselves to blame for not letting nvidia develop chipsets for it's new CPUs or developing decent integrated graphics themselves.

Click to expand...

Apple is just one vendor among others. Actually, Apple has relatively small market share so their opinion isn't very important. Besides, Intel knows they have the best CPUs so it's pretty hard for Apple to totally abandon Intel.

res1233 said:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I think it's inevitable that apple will go to AMD. As it stands, apple is forced to use intel chipsets along with the terrible integrated graphics that come with them, with the core iX processors. The MB, MBA, and Mini all need something better than intel graphics. Hence why apple still uses the core2 duo in them.

Here's a theory: Early & exclusive access to Fusion.

Click to expand...

Oh man, try to get some information, before you post BS on MR!

Try this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

Sandy Bridge has 256-Bit AVX instructions and even better AES encrypt/decrypt instructions. Both extension sets are important for Apple. Applications can be found in image processing, File Vault and so on. It makes no sense for Apple to switch to AMD processors.

alent1234 said:

intel graphics from 2 years ago can do hardware h.264 decoding with Flash unlike Mac's with 9400M's that were sold this year.

Click to expand...

Well, QuickTime 7 and QuickTime X under Mac OS X support the hardware decoding of H.264 content on 9400M IGPs. Btw, the QuickTime browser plugin supports the same hardware acceleration.

alent1234 said:

i have a lenovo laptop with a i5 CPU and the intel graphics are just fine for regular Windows 7 stuff. Anandtech did an OS X benchmark and found that OS X is more finicky when it comes to 3D graphics.

intel graphics from 2 years ago can do hardware h.264 decoding with Flash unlike Mac's with 9400M's that were sold this year.

Click to expand...

What? Every Mac with a 9400M has hardware acceleration in Flash. And out of all of the Macs that have come with Intel graphics the only ones even capable of hardware acceleration are the 2010 15 and 17-inch MBP's which have a 330M for hardware acceleration.

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/#video

This would be good, seeing as how Intel is bent on not allowing 3rd parties to license over DMI. (ie nVidia being kicked out)

asdf542 said:

What? Every Mac with a 9400M has hardware acceleration in Flash. And out of all of the Macs that have come with Intel graphics the only ones even capable of hardware acceleration are the 2010 15 and 17-inch MBP's which have a 330M for hardware acceleration.

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/#video

Click to expand...

i thought i read here something over the summer that the 9400M was at first supported but the final version didn't support it due to Apple's drivers or something

AMD are the future.

Intel are the past.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

It is sad that people here think using AMD initiatives like Fusion mean it is all or nothing. That is garbage, Apple could easily select manufactures based on the best chip available for the machine. For things like the Mac Book AIRs the Bobcat based Fusion processors could be an excellent fit. Even more important is that such hardware would allow Apple to actually lower prices.

People forget that having a power house processor isn't often everybodys goal, adding four hours of run time to an AIR or Mac Book may be the feature people want. It looks like Sandy Bridge will actually be a nice performance update from Intel, but it is a mistake to believe that it will go into low end machines day one. It is simply a cost issue.

In any event it is pretty obvious that Intel has been caught off guard by AMDs Fusion initiative. This will drive down the prices on some of Intels mobile products. Intel is already repositioning hardware to compensate for the lack of a good answer to the Bobcat line up. Intel might be a little more secure with respect to competition from the mainstream Fusion product but Apple still has cost sensitive products where the hardware would make sense with AMD hardware.

In any event this thinking in absolutes is a joke. Just as Apple looked for alternatives for the iOS devices so to can they look for alternatives for the Macs.

PC Impress looks quite delicious today.

Other companies don't seem to have a problem selling both AMD- and Intel-based systems. Entering into an exclusivity agreement with Intel or anybody else is pretty stupid, especially when things break down over disagreements or technical setbacks.

Hopefully Apple adopts AMD. Just got about 70 stocks at a little less than 6 bucks a couple months ago!

TSE said:

Hopefully Apple adopts AMD. Just got about 70 stocks at a little less than 6 bucks a couple months ago!

Click to expand...

Times were much more fun when AMD stock was under $2.

Eidorian said:

Times were much more fun when AMD stock was under $2.

Click to expand...

I played with their stock at that time (I think it was 8 months ago?). Sold when AMD hit $10/share. Nice little profit there.