Poll:Should Apple partner with AMD to produce Macs w/ AMD chips?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll:Should Apple partner with AMD to produce Macs w/ AMD chips? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=75&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[mads]

I voted yes, but I don't think that they should produce x86 processors, but rather work together on the G5/G4+ or whatever.

[monkeydo_jb]

Nope.




-jeff

[springscansing]

Yes, but not a PPC cheap I do not think either. Just something stupidly fast that can come out in 6 months or so (Hammer) which would give developers plenty of time to recompile for x86-64.

[Hawthorne]

Only if it is PPC-compatible. If Apple forces programs to be re-compiles again to run on x86, developers will drop the platform in droves, signalling the end of Macs.

[barkmonster]

I hope apple don't go and switch to x86 based chips, it's a dying technology and the AMD chip is actually a stepping stone to phasing it out while being backwards compatable with it. PowerPC has so much life left in it, especially with the IBM PPC970. I know it's not going to have some huge clock speed but do you really think a 3Ghz+ Pentium 4 or a 1Ghz Operon are really going to compete with a dual 1.8Ghz powermac with 2 PPC970 chips on a screamingly fast motherboard ?

I don't, even if they do, you've still got the whole problem of writing a perfect PowerPC emulator to run on the AMD chip so there's backwards compatability with older sofware.

Only if it is PPC-compatible. If Apple forces programs to be re-compiles again to run on x86, developers will drop the platform in droves, signalling the end of Macs.

Couldn't agree more!!!

[vniow]

Who said that all their linup's going to be AMDs anywayz? Definately not the noteooks if Apple wants to keep it's famed battery life.

And developers won't have to worry I don't think. OSX is modular, like Linux in a way. It can be easily compiled to run on either x86 or PPC processors with relatively little efforf. The rumors say that 'Project Marklar' only consists of 12 people. Linux can run the same apps on both x86 and PPC platforms so why should developers be scared if Apple were to move some of their line (not all) over to AMDs? (x86 or not)

And if I'm completely wrong about this, feel free to flame.

[DannyZR2]

Carbon was supposed to be a "simple recompile" but how many of us are still waiting for os 9 apps to come out on X if even just a carbon copy!?!

A "simple recompile" is only simple if it happens once... but 2 or 3 times PER developer adds up really fast.. how many programs are out there, thousands? and recompile them all?
not so simple anymore...

so here is your flame... :)

I can only see AMD or any other SMP company out there producing cpus for apple if they are ppc/risc chips.. none of this crappy x86 architecture.. we have come too far. but.. apple doesn't soley own the ppc rights, do they? they'd have to get okays from moto and ibm on selling the ppc code to amd wouldn't they? I think we can count that out and in effect count amd out of the whole thing...

that leaves the possibility of amd producing the system controller chips.... i don't know wether they currently do this for other boards, but perhaps it's a possibility for apple's system chips. but I don't see it for cpus...

[morgoth]

It is my opinion that going with AMD processors will have many benefits, but will also entail costs.

Benefits:
- cheaper, readily available processors (AMD has US OEMS so no worry about International trade problems)
- easy to find motherboard replacements/upgrades
- existing price scales could be kept but the extra price would go to give Macs would have the cutting-edge hardware they deserve ( eg. fastest ATA, AGP, and Front Side buses available )
- more affordable iMac and eMac models could be released for more casual users
- endianness: x86 Windows/Linux apps would be more easily ported

Costs:
- endianness: exisiting Mac apps relying on binary data could require modification or complete rewrites
- no more hardware distinction between Mac and PC, only the OS

Discussion:
If Apple went with AMD chips the Mac would have the fastest and cheapest processors available. The Motorola G4 is overrated and overpriced. I'm tired of $2000CDN processor upgrades and non-existant motherboard options. Even if Apple were to buy AMD chips from retailers they would cost less than they do at wholesale from Motorola. It's time we stopped supporting Motorola since it clearly doesn't care about us.

We would also still "Think Different" since we would not be using Windows or the overrated Intel chips. I am also certain that Apple would maintain its proud tradition of having the snazziest cases in the Industry.

Many AMD/Linux officianados would be sorely tempted to give the Mac a try and would probably stick to it like glue. In addition to this, the dramatic drop in price between PPC and AMD would allow Apple to release remarkably cheap eMacs for the casual or less wealthy user. These two factors could quite possibly tip the scales back to Mac within a generation.

Imagine it. If Apple played it right it could be the best move they ever make.

[morgoth]

I see this suggestion in many of your posts. Do you have any idea how the microprocessor industry works?

Even if I had a fab I couldn't just pick up the specs for a PPC 970 and have it made.

The only reason Apple would go to AMD is for Hammer chips. These will allow Apple to be the first company with a commercial 64-bit OS running on 64-bit chips.

Bad architecture? Does it really matter? The x86 architecture is not the ideal architecture, but it isn't so bad as to hamper development. OS X is hardware independent so the only thing that we see from PPC is overpriced, bandwidth-starved crap waiting to be flushed.

The PowerPC 970 won't be ready until late next year. If Apple doesn't replace the G4 soon they may as well throw in the towel. A 1GHz G4 benchs even to the 1GHz P3 ( if you think I'm lying read http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/). AMD's processors outbench Intel's and Motorola's clock for clock.

It's time we made a compromise. As an Engineer I recognize things that refuse to bend as things that will break.

[dricci]

Originally posted by Ness
Motorola makes the best PowerPC chips you idiots!!!

MOTOROLA!!!!!

NOT IBM, NOT AMD, NOT INTEL, NOT ANYBODY ELSE DAMNIT!!!

Yeah, IBM makes those sucky Power 4s. Who on earth would want one of those? I'd rather settle for an Overclocked DDR-hack special straight from the motorola plant than a native 64-bit and DDR supporting PPC chip!

:rolleyes:

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by Ness
Motorola makes the best PowerPC chips you idiots!!!

MOTOROLA!!!!!

NOT IBM, NOT AMD, NOT INTEL, NOT ANYBODY ELSE DAMNIT!!!
...lost for words...can't speak...need to lay down...are u serious??? :eek: :confused:
Originally posted by dricci
Yeah, IBM makes those sucky Power 4s. Who on earth would want one of those? I'd rather settle for an Overclocked DDR-hack special straight from the motorola plant than a native 64-bit and DDR supporting PPC chip!
....ah....that's better, a voice of a little more sense! ;)

[Catfish_Man]

...AMD is tiny, and is losing lots of money. Almost their entire budget is going into the Hammer (ever wondered why the Athlon fell behind the P4 recently? Practically no R&D budget). They have never made a PowerPC chip, so any one they produced would be several years behind at best (Moto and IBM have years of experience/patents/designs). Therefore, we don't want an AMD PPC chip. What about Hammer, though? Well, OSX could be ported relatively easily; It would have a number of problems though:
1) Speed. All Altivec code would have to be tossed. All PowerPC optimizations (loop unrolling, etc...) would have to be tossed.
2) Programs. Even if it was just a recompile (which it wouldn't be in many cases. Cross platform code is great for finding bugs, and they'd have to rewrite any assembly/altivec code), do you really think all the users are going to go out and get yet another copy of all their programs because none of the old ones work anymore? Nope. What about Classic? Heavily tied to PowerPC.
3) Future. x86 is a decade older than PowerPC, and afaik, has never been able to match its performance (Power4+ vs. anything: Power4+ wins). Both Intel and AMD are trying to get rid of it (IA-64, x86-64), so why would we switch to it now?
4) Heat/Power consumption. Say goodbye to the TiBook... Athlons draw up to ~70 watts at the higher clock frequencies. Hammers will draw at least that much.

So, what would we get? A slow (due to non-optimized code) computer that couldn't run any programs, drew tons of power, and had no future. <sarcasm> Sounds great to me! I hope they switch ASAP! </sarcasm>

The 970 is the future. It's fast, has a future (IBM says it's the first in a series), has a massive budget backing it, is PPC, and doesn't draw much power. When it switches to .09 micron circuitry, we may get spiffy stuff like dual cores or integrated DDR controllers. We don't need x86.

[Kelson]

This whole discussion is far beyond being ridiculous at this point.

There are a few simple reasons why Apple will NOT move to x86.

1. This involves much more than just 'recompiling' applications. There is the endian issue to deal with.

2. 3rd Party developers will not put up with another platform change this soon after the OS9 to OSX migration.

3. This would indicate to the market that Apple is adrift from a leadership standpoint.

4. It would lead to consumer demand for Apple to support every bit of hardware available for the PC, creating the instability issues seen on the Wintel platform.

5. Apple would have to cut prices drastically and compete with x86 hardware pricing, which would reduce margins. This would ultimately lead to layoffs at Apple and a declining stock price.

6. Microsoft would very likely refuse to port Office OS X to the x86 platform, citing lack of demand or some other excuse. Apple depends on Office and that move by Microsoft would kill Apple.

Apple uses their software to sell their hardware. Right now, they are in a bit of a slump because of the issues surrounding the lack of a G5 processor. It is not just Apple that is seeing decreased sales right now, it is the entire industry. If Apple is smart, they will position themselves well for an upturn in computer sales, which is turning into a cyclical market. This means getting their product line established by the end of 2003 around the next generation architectures.

The challenges with moving to a non-PPC architecture are significant and would take LONGER than waiting for the PPC970. It does not matter if OS X is ready to run on x86 if there are no applications. The PPC970 will be shipping within the next 12 months. In the mean time, we will all just continue to make do with what is available. We can also be confident that Apple will take this time to continue to improve OS X by adding new functionality and features, which will make the arrival of the PPC970 that much better.

The current G4 systems may be slower than the P4 3ghz systems. Fact is, there are not that many people rushing out to buy top of the line P4 systems, because very few people really need that processing speed. The vast majority of people I know are still running older Pentium II, or Pentium III systems, because they work just fine. A very large number of people are still running Win95 for the same reason. This delay in product cycle WILL NOT KILL APPLE. Doing something rash could.

About future processor fab choices.

AMD - They are to small and losing money. They do not have the ability to start fabbing PPC chips.

MOT - They are moving away from the PPC from all appearances

IBM - The leader in the chip fabrication industry. They are able to provide stable chip supplies and R&D to make Apple successful.

Be patient, enjoy the software updates to Jaguar and the upcoming Panther releases. Look at the other advances in hardware outside just CPU's. I firmly believe that Apple will be bringing it all together to provide the most impressive computing platform ever seen by/at MWSF '04. (Sounds like a long time, but it is only a year off.)

That is why after 14 years of being a Mac-Hater, I've finally become a switcher with the release of the new 1Ghz Powerbooks....

- Kelson

[Wash!!]

I agree with you.

Most of these people don't understand that the x86 chip are a dead end road even for M$. they can not keep putting out chips with xGHz for ever is physically impossible to do it. Intel and ADM have to shift to a new archtecture within a year or two.

Apple uses RISC chips which are far supperior at lower speed than the so called xGhz from ADM or Intel. Just take a look a the other plattaforms like Sun, Hp or SGI their CPU's don't even go as high as 800Mhz but the are super fast.

This is because for most american consumers its always belive that faster and bigger is better. for example take a look at the fast food industry everything is "Super Size" that's why americans are big fat blobs.

Just relax enjoy your macs they are the best thing since slice bread.
cheers :D

[eyeluvmyimac]

Wow. Well said.

A voice of reason, a voice of logic, a voice of "correctness" (as far as I know [which isnt much lol]).

MWSF '04 is too far ahead. We have NO IDEA what apple has up their sleeves for 2003. They could completely stun the entire industry with who-knows-what, or they could leave us with dual 1.25 ghz g4's for another year.

I doubt the latter, but possible.

Take it one MW at a time, not 4 or 5.

[alex_ant]

Every single person here who said that Apple should move to AMD chips is an idiot of the highest order.

FACT: AMD's future is uncertain. How long can they continue to compete when they continue to be unable to make substantial profits even when their chips are faster and cheaper than Intel's? It's not necessarily about the fastest chips. Long-term viability is very important as well. If Apple were to make a deal with AMD tomorrow, would AMD be around in five years to stick to it?

FACT: AMD's manufacturing capabilities are limited and being pushed to the limits as it is. How in the hell is AMD supposed to manufacture processors for Apple when they've got one factory in the entire world whose sole purpose is to produce chips in as high a volume possible to compete against Intel in a never-ending price war? If you want AMD to take over PPC manufacturing (and not manufacture an x86 processor for the Mac), why not farm out manufacturing to a company more capable of fulfilling Apple's needs, like, hmm, Toshiba, Samsung, or... or... IBM??? (Hey, wait a minute! That's what Apple is already doing.)

FACT: AMD's technology is over-hyped. It's not all that the fanboys say it is. The Athlon's supposed super-fast FPU is a myth. SPEC shows the P4 is clearly in the lead in both integer and FP. AMD is lagging in the clock-rate race, and it's doubtful that even the Opteron (when it comes) will be able to make up for this, as Intel is hardly standing still.

The PPC 970 is Apple's future on a ****ing shining silver platter, and yet hordes of people want Apple to hand that future over to a second-rate manufacturer of PC processors whose own future is questionable. Why? Too many people here on Mac Rumors must be eating lead-contaminated paint chips or something. It's the only way to explain the rampant idiocy.

[barkmonster]

The PPC 970 is Apple's future on a ****ing shining silver platter, and yet hordes of people want Apple to hand that future over to a second-rate manufacturer of PC processors whose own future is questionable. Why? Too many people here on Mac Rumors must be eating lead-contaminated paint chips or something. It's the only way to explain the rampant idiocy.

I think it's a minority of mainly PC owners scrabbling for some hope that they'll be able build their own mac for under a grand one day, shove for x86 compatable version of OS X on it and it'll be a killer system.

I think the guy who mentioned the low cost wi-fi chip produced by AMD was probably the most on the ball person talking about an AMD collaboration, if it means apple can provide airport as standard feature then it's another good thing for apple to be doing to push their digital hub idea.

Also hypertransport would gain more credibility with the PC side if it wasn't just one company using it. Intel are likely to stick to their own chipsets and FSB technologies, AMD and Apple (maybe) are going to be using hypertransport, that means whatever RAM or system controller required for the technology would end up being a large demand part with a high volume of sales, pushing the price down compared with competing technology and benefiting both AMD and Apple even though the CPUs they're going to use with technology is completely different.

[Abercrombieboy]

Originally posted by Ness

x86 is a sucky architecture compared to PowerPC!!!
Motorola makes the best PowerPC chips you idiots!!!

MOTOROLA!!!!!

NOT IBM, NOT AMD, NOT INTEL, NOT ANYBODY ELSE DAMNIT!!!

Doesn't IBM already make the PowerPC 750cx and fx that are in the iBooks and G3 iMacs? Aren't they also going to make the PPC 970....It just sounds like you don't even realize that IBM also makes PowerPC.

[scem0]

I think a partnership between apple and AMD would be awesome. I think
a partnership between apple and Intel would be better because Intel chips
are faster (at most things). Well, either way the chips will be faster then the
current g4s and so they will make me happy. Just as long as it is faster and
everything works.

[benixau]

Originally posted by Ness

Motorola makes the best PowerPC chips you idiots!!!

MOTOROLA!!!!!

NOT IBM, NOT AMD, NOT INTEL, NOT ANYBODY ELSE DAMNIT!!!

you are and idiot. IBMs PPC750 (G3) chips, if i remember correctly are already running at the same speed as motos g4 chips.

you need a life. Any PPC chip that has been worth buying as been an IBM chip.

you disgust me that you can call yourself a mac fan. Go away

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alex_ant
FACT: AMD's technology is over-hyped. It's not all that the fanboys say it is. The Athlon's supposed super-fast FPU is a myth. SPEC shows the P4 is clearly in the lead in both integer and FP. AMD is lagging in the clock-rate race, and it's doubtful that even the Opteron (when it comes) will be able to make up for this, as Intel is hardly standing still.
Athlon's super-fast FPU is not a myth. It's true.

SPEC is a good benchmark for measuring linear performance; however, I must point out that it's better to use real world applications, such as, say, 3DSMAX. In 3DSMAX, A top dog Athlon XP beats a top dog Pentium 4, sure by a few seconds on tests, but considering AMD is at 2.13 GHz and it's comparative processor is the 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Shows how better AMD's FPU unit is by design.

Intel is leading now because their clock rate is so high.

But here comes the Intel Pentium 4 3.06 GHz with Hyperthreading! :D

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Athlon's super-fast FPU is not a myth. It's true.

SPEC is a good benchmark for measuring linear performance; however, I must point out that it's better to use real world applications, such as, say, 3DSMAX. In 3DSMAX, A top dog Athlon XP beats a top dog Pentium 4, sure by a few seconds on tests, but considering AMD is at 2.13 GHz and it's comparative processor is the 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Shows how better AMD's FPU unit is by design.
First of all, you can't gain an accurate understanding of processor performance with just one application benchmark. Second of all, saying an Athlon at 2.13 GHz beats a P4 at 2.8GHz isn't saying much, as the P4's FPU is probably the least efficient modern FPU there is today, per-clock. Other (non-desktop) chips manage to approach the speed of that FPU at less than half the clock rate. At best, the Athlon's FPU is slightly below average, and to tie this back into the notion of Apple switching to AMD, it would still make no sense whatsoever even from a performance standpoint because the PPC 970's AltiVec unit will piss all over any FPU AMD is able to deliver by that time, just as the G4's did in 1999. Not to mention the general-purpose FPU it will have, which will certainly be at least in the same league.

Intel is leading now because their clock rate is so high.
It doesn't matter why they're leading. It matters that they're leading. They continue to get faster and faster, and AMD is having a very hard time keeping up - and being profitable - which is the whole reason I'm questioning all the people who are so quick to wish for an AMD chip inside a Mac.

[Fipher]

This whole discussion is far beyond being ridiculous at this point.

There are a few simple reasons why Apple will NOT move to x86.

1. This involves much more than just 'recompiling' applications. There is the endian issue to deal with.

2. 3rd Party developers will not put up with another platform change this soon after the OS9 to OSX migration.

3. This would indicate to the market that Apple is adrift from a leadership standpoint.

4. It would lead to consumer demand for Apple to support every bit of hardware available for the PC, creating the instability issues seen on the Wintel platform.

5. Apple would have to cut prices drastically and compete with x86 hardware pricing, which would reduce margins. This would ultimately lead to layoffs at Apple and a declining stock price.

6. Microsoft would very likely refuse to port Office OS X to the x86 platform, citing lack of demand or some other excuse. Apple depends on Office and that move by Microsoft would kill Apple.

Apple uses their software to sell their hardware. Right now, they are in a bit of a slump because of the issues surrounding the lack of a G5 processor. It is not just Apple that is seeing decreased sales right now, it is the entire industry. If Apple is smart, they will position themselves well for an upturn in computer sales, which is turning into a cyclical market. This means getting their product line established by the end of 2003 around the next generation architectures.

The challenges with moving to a non-PPC architecture are significant and would take LONGER than waiting for the PPC970. It does not matter if OS X is ready to run on x86 if there are no applications. The PPC970 will be shipping within the next 12 months. In the mean time, we will all just continue to make do with what is available. We can also be confident that Apple will take this time to continue to improve OS X by adding new functionality and features, which will make the arrival of the PPC970 that much better.

The current G4 systems may be slower than the P4 3ghz systems. Fact is, there are not that many people rushing out to buy top of the line P4 systems, because very few people really need that processing speed. The vast majority of people I know are still running older Pentium II, or Pentium III systems, because they work just fine. A very large number of people are still running Win95 for the same reason. This delay in product cycle WILL NOT KILL APPLE. Doing something rash could.

About future processor fab choices.

AMD - They are to small and losing money. They do not have the ability to start fabbing PPC chips.

MOT - They are moving away from the PPC from all appearances

IBM - The leader in the chip fabrication industry. They are able to provide stable chip supplies and R&D to make Apple successful.

Be patient, enjoy the software updates to Jaguar and the upcoming Panther releases. Look at the other advances in hardware outside just CPU's. I firmly believe that Apple will be bringing it all together to provide the most impressive computing platform ever seen by/at MWSF '04. (Sounds like a long time, but it is only a year off.)

That is why after 14 years of being a Mac-Hater, I've finally become a switcher with the release of the new 1Ghz Powerbooks....

- Kelson

Amen to that! If everyone were to read this it would mshut everyones mouths because it makes TOTAL sence! Why didn't I think of this? (mabe because I don't have all the information, confidence, and pacience to compose a masterpece post such as the one in question) Than ks you so very much Kelson, you are a truely inpirational poster. This should put to rest all the questions anyone has bout the future of Apple(as long as Apple is as logical as you or has something so spacktacualr up it's sleeve that it has manages to keep it a total seecret all this time and plans on unleashing it as a cmplete surprise to everyone that has any care of the computer industry).

[sickboy_osX]

The Only Way I would support Apple using AMD is if the following quallifications were met:

1. The Chip would have to be RISC based.
Risc Stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computing Which means there are not as complex of commands that programmers need to learn

2. Since Apple does not own, the Altivec(r) Technology used on the G4's, Come up with somthing like it. That would enhance productivity.

I dont want apple to become another x86 whore.

But these are just my opinions. If apple cant get AMD to follow these requirements, or if they cant get motorola to produce, I would go to the company that makes the Hewlett-Packard PA Risc Chips, and see if they could work somthing else.

[SilvorX]

it would be nice to see apple getting macs into the 3 ghz range with an athlon processor (either have an "Athlon X" series or just use the hammer line), but the only way mac users would accept this is if there is no way to install windows on a mac still (unless u have vpc)