AMD iMac

[shujin]

So how would you guys feel if the next imac had an AMD inside. I feel like it would be a step backwards performance wise. The only advantage I could see would be if we got new ATi graphics sooner then later. The current imacs can have 4850's in them but desktop graphics have had the 5000 series for a while. I do plan on buying a new desktop with in the next 1-2 years. I would personally rather have an intel mac over an amd one.

[splashnader]

I always enjoyed the speed and performance from old gaming pc that used an AMD processor. No complaints here.

[Schtumple]

I could see AMDs being used for the lower end machines on Apples scale, could help introduce lower cost macs without terrible performance.

[Kebabselector]

I could see AMDs being used for the lower end machines on Apples scale, could help introduce higher profit macs without terrible performance.

Fixed

[DoFoT9]

I always enjoyed the speed and performance from old gaming pc that used an AMD processor. No complaints here.
the AMD machines do feel as though they are performing better gaming wise, that must just be their "thing". but clock for clock wise, they just do not perform. the latest server and consumer CPUs are quiet horrid when compared to intel - they just cant keep up at this rate.

for the lower ended machines, such as the mini/MB, i would be happy having a low end (cheap) AMD machine avaiable to purchase - it might get even more "switchers"

Fixed

nice one ;)

[MacHamster68]

i order the first amd Mac , no matter what mac it might be and no matter what it costs ,
because amd processor and ati graphic cards work much better together , as they are made to work together as a team and not like two separate devices
the phenom2 might not be as fast as the i7 , but the saving should enable apple to put the savings towards the graphic card the iMac would deserve a ati radeon hd 5970 which would make the gamers and people who actually need graphic performance very happy and there is enough space in in the 27"iMac
only one thing the psu should be upgraded too... as the hd 5970 card will draw most of the energy of the current psu

[shujin]

the AMD machines do feel as though they are performing better gaming wise, that must just be their "thing". but clock for clock wise, they just do not perform. the latest server and consumer CPUs are quiet horrid when compared to intel - they just cant keep up at this rate.

for the lower ended machines, such as the mini/MB, i would be happy having a low end (cheap) AMD machine avaiable to purchase - it might get even more "switchers"



nice one ;)

Actually gaming wise I have read reports that most people are using Nvidia and Intel in their gaming machines. I feel like the saying that AMD is good for gaming was true about four years ago but not now. Though I do agree if apple wanted to make a more PROFITABLE mac it would be powered by an AMD chip. But then again I feel like that would be following the dell method of building pcs. Apple doesn't follow that method at all.

[natewsmith]

AMD's are SWEET Processors! They are SOOO much better than intel!

I have always had an AMD windows machine. They run quicker, quieter and cooler than Intel. And I always use ATI graphics cards as well.

How can you say that they don't DoFoT9? They have such better chip sets than Intel.

I would love to see them switch and become great again!

[Kpjoslee]

AMD's are SWEET Processors! They are SOOO much better than intel!

I have always had an AMD windows machine. They run quicker, quieter and cooler than Intel. And I always use ATI graphics cards as well.

How can you say that they don't DoFoT9? They have such better chip sets than Intel.

I would love to see them switch and become great again!
Lol, you mean back when Intel had netburst architecture and AMD riding high with Athlon 64s right? Intel had performance lead ever since Core 2 came out, and more power efficient also.
Only segment that AMD is competitive is desktop market, with Phenom IIs having pretty good performance/price ratio. On laptop scene, AMD is way behind intel.
I do love their GPU line though, I have 5870 on my core i7 gaming rig and what a great decision it was, instead of waiting for Nvidia Fermi.

[Dr.Pants]

the AMD machines do feel as though they are performing better gaming wise, that must just be their "thing". but clock for clock wise, they just do not perform.

As far as performance, I have a 3.2 GHz dual-core Windsor in my former gaming machine; thing owns at 1680x1050 with an 8800GT. No AA, but Source games run like butter on it. Only real complaint is more directed at boardmakers, I've gone through one mobo and parts on the second are dying. Teach me to buy (Brand X) boards. Still, I would say that its easily outperformed by several Intel parts (not to mention, based on 90 nm, its a heater).

To the point, though; I've heard around that the newest AMD processors are comparable to C2D chips. So not much new for the iMac.

I'd like to see AMD chipsets supported natively though, it would make things far easier for an AMD-based render node (price of Thuban compared to the price of Gulftown? I'm a student, d*mmit)

[Aegelward]

Using AMD apple could finally introduce a mid-range desktop system.. I can't really see them in an iMac i'm afraid.

AMD make pretty good chips; people often forget that Intel have multibillion R&D budgets so the fact AMD are getting shaken down when it comes to market is unsurprising. They can develop in months what AMD takes years. If Apple push more budget into AMD's R&D we might see something good.

I don't think Steve is compassionate enough to give them a chance. But if Apple give AMD a chance it'd validate AMD in the eyes of a *lot* of Manufactures, Companies and Consumers.

But.. cheaper mac pro, a mid range desktop or XServ are where i see AMD appearing

[Rodus]

Intlel CPU's are better then AMD nowadays, since the introduction of the Core lineup. Nvidia always used to be the preferred GPU's for gamers but the new Fermi's are stupidly hot and power hungry and still can't match the Radeon 5970 (or the cheaper 5870 half the time).

[DoFoT9]

As far as performance, I have a 3.2 GHz dual-core Windsor in my former gaming machine; thing owns at 1680x1050 with an 8800GT. No AA, but Source games run like butter on it. Only real complaint is more directed at boardmakers, I've gone through one mobo and parts on the second are dying. Teach me to buy (Brand X) boards. Still, I would say that its easily outperformed by several Intel parts (not to mention, based on 90 nm, its a heater).

To the point, though; I've heard around that the newest AMD processors are comparable to C2D chips. So not much new for the iMac.

I'd like to see AMD chipsets supported natively though, it would make things far easier for an AMD-based render node (price of Thuban compared to the price of Gulftown? I'm a student, d*mmit)

well.. to be honest.. even my imac 4850 would kill @1050p with no AA... comparing a product that has been superseeded 3 times doesnt really constitute anything, especially when your comparing it to a game that was made what - +5 years ago?


AMD's are SWEET Processors! They are SOOO much better than intel!

How can you say that they don't DoFoT9? They have such better chip sets than Intel.

I would love to see them switch and become great again!
im sorry nate, but you sound like you know nothing about CPUs. the AMD line up is getting KILLED clock for clock. sure, they might be 6-core (server side) which beat the intels - but clock for clock they have nothing on the intel CPUs. price wise yea AMD rules, intel has the majority and therefore set the pricetags unfortunately!

Actually gaming wise I have read reports that most people are using Nvidia and Intel in their gaming machines. I feel like the saying that AMD is good for gaming was true about four years ago but not now. Though I do agree if apple wanted to make a more PROFITABLE mac it would be powered by an AMD chip. But then again I feel like that would be following the dell method of building pcs. Apple doesn't follow that method at all.

yea profitable.. but thats a lot of work for apple to do - and i wouldnt buy it to be honest. seems like such a waste of investment.

[mtnDewFTW]

I agree with OP.
I think teaming up with AMD would be a mistake, unless they offered some of AMD's best chips on very low end models, and just get rid of C2D.

To me it really doesn't look like Apple will be teaming up with AMD anytime soon, since they just came out with the new MBPs with intel chips in them.

I really hope Apple continue their healthy partnership with intel and not even thinking of offering AMD processors in any of their computers.

[Dr.Pants]

well.. to be honest.. even my imac 4850 would kill @1050p with no AA... comparing a product that has been superseeded 3 times doesnt really constitute anything, especially when your comparing it to a game that was made what - +5 years ago?

L4D2 is a 2009 game, IIRC.

I should've made myself a bit more to the point by saying that AMDs stuff can game, as you said, but I completely forgot to compare it to the performance of a different computer; in essence, a lower-clocked processor of the same era doing exactly what you said, outperforming the AMD.

yea profitable.. but thats a lot of work for apple to do - and i wouldnt buy it to be honest. seems like such a waste of investment.

Gonna second this, unless AMD is going to be far more competitive when Global Foundries opens up their new fabs (IIRC 2011-12?).

[DoFoT9]

L4D2 is a 2009 game, IIRC.

I should've made myself a bit more to the point by saying that AMDs stuff can game, as you said, but I completely forgot to compare it to the performance of a different computer; in essence, a lower-clocked processor of the same era doing exactly what you said, outperforming the AMD.
well from that era, it would roughly be from the C2D machines - so yes i still expect the Intel CPUs to "beat" the AMD CPUs.

Gonna second this, unless AMD is going to be far more competitive when Global Foundries opens up their new fabs (IIRC 2011-12?).

tbh, doesnt look like it :(

[Raima]

AMD's are SWEET Processors! They are SOOO much better than intel!

I have always had an AMD windows machine. They run quicker, quieter and cooler than Intel. And I always use ATI graphics cards as well.

How can you say that they don't DoFoT9? They have such better chip sets than Intel.

I would love to see them switch and become great again!

Have you been hiding under a rock? Intel have been supierior for many years now. Overclock an i7 quad core to 4Ghz and it's all over red rover.

[Aegelward]

There is always the chance that the anti-trust folks are getting on Apple's back for being Intel exclusive.

Just a few months ago AMD won a major anti-trust case against intel and their anti-competitive measures (people don't use AMD chips because they are 'bad' they don't use them because OEMs are wrapped around intel's finger)

So there is a plausibility that Apple might introduce an AMD machine in some obscure fashion just to appease them.

[myuserid08]

Wouldn't there be a problem running windows as well :confused:

Didn't the move from powerpc to intel open the door to windows/bootcamp

[pastrychef]

There is always the chance that the anti-trust folks are getting on Apple's back for being Intel exclusive.

Just a few months ago AMD won a major anti-trust case against intel and their anti-competitive measures (people don't use AMD chips because they are 'bad' they don't use them because OEMs are wrapped around intel's finger)

So there is a plausibility that Apple might introduce an AMD machine in some obscure fashion just to appease them.

What anti-trust?!? Apple owns less than 10% of the computer market!

As things are now, no one can dictate what type of processor Apple uses except Steve Jobs.

[DoFoT9]

Wouldn't there be a problem running windows as well :confused:

Didn't the move from powerpc to intel open the door to windows/bootcamp

uummm.... can you not run windows on AMD based computers? silly billy.

[Dr.Pants]

tbh, doesnt look like it :(

Yeah, the possibility is slim. If for some reason Apple wanted all quad-cores in their iMac lineup, maintaining their current margins and volume sales would be pretty hard to do (unless hey started using C2Q), but the chances of that happening are slim as well.

Speculation on this entire Apple-in-negotiations-with-AMD might have more to do with graphics then processors... unless its just poking Intel in the ribs for only offering a mobile platform with an intergrated GPU, IIRC. Which is much more what this seems like then anything else.

[pastrychef]

I think that having some AMD based systems could help Apple offer lower cost Macs. Having more choices is definitely a good thing. Granted, from what I've seen in the last several years, AMD processors have not been able to keep up with Intel's, but they have priced their offerings accordingly and sometimes offers good value.

Another benefit that an alliance with AMD could bring is current generation ATI graphic cards. It sucks that Apple users always seem to be about a generation behind when it comes to graphics cards.

[Hellhammer]

Well, AMD makes okay desktop chips but pretty hot for other than Mac Pros. In mobile chips they are WAY behind Intel (think they top out at 2.4GHz dual core?).

Apple would also have to update OS X to support AMD which may not be very small task.

I personally doubt this very much, mainly because AMD is behind Intel and as seen in new MBPs, Apple continues to use nVidia. IF Apple would use AMD, they would make a deal and use only ATI as well to get better deals (all from same company)

[DoFoT9]

Yeah, the possibility is slim. If for some reason Apple wanted all quad-cores in their iMac lineup, maintaining their current margins and volume sales would be pretty hard to do (unless hey started using C2Q), but the chances of that happening are slim as well.

Speculation on this entire Apple-in-negotiations-with-AMD might have more to do with graphics then processors... unless its just poking Intel in the ribs for only offering a mobile platform with an intergrated GPU, IIRC. Which is much more what this seems like then anything else.
i do agree, a low end, low powered, cheap iMac AMD machine (or macbook/macbook pro) would attract alot of attention from potential noobie switchers

I think that having some AMD based systems could help Apple offer lower cost Macs. Having more choices is definitely a good thing. Granted, from what I've seen in the last several years, AMD processors have not been able to keep up with Intel's, but they have priced their offerings accordingly and sometimes offers good value.
yup id agree with everything you just said there. (Y)

Well, AMD makes okay desktop chips but pretty hot for other than Mac Pros. In mobile chips they are WAY behind Intel (think they top out at 2.4GHz dual core?).

Apple would also have to update OS X to support AMD which may not be very small task.

I personally doubt this very much, mainly because AMD is behind Intel and as seen in new MBPs, Apple continues to use nVidia. IF Apple would use AMD, they would make a deal and use only ATI as well to get better deals (all from same company)
ohhhh yea, making OSX compatible with AMD is a HUGE task. apple is working on iphone os4 versions now, and they dont have many other workers lying around!

the AMD chips are hot>? how hot! :eek:

[Hellhammer]

the AMD chips are hot>? how hot! :eek:

For iMac they could fit 95W 3GHz quad (x4 945) or even x4 965 if there will be 95W version of it.

Main problem would be laptops as there are no fast chips from AMD and as I said, AFAIK they top out at 2.4GHz dual core. There is 2.3GHz quad with TDP of 45W but that's too hot for MBPs.

AMD is concentrated on low-end computers and servers, and IMO Macs are not low-end.

[DoFoT9]

For iMac they could fit 95W 3GHz quad (x4 945) or even x4 965 if there will be 95W version of it.
yea the imac is pretty decent at cooling. so no worry there.. but that would interrupt with the quad imacs with intel chips - apple wont do that

Main problem would be laptops as there are no fast chips from AMD and as I said, AFAIK they top out at 2.4GHz dual core. There is 2.3GHz quad with TDP of 45W but that's too hot for MBPs.

AMD is concentrated on low-end computers and servers, and IMO Macs are not low-end.
yea fair enough,, no laptop AMD chips then! just mac mini + imac :P

[Hellhammer]

just mac mini + imac :P

Mini uses laptop chips :p

Too much hassle for just iMac and as I said, Apple should use only AMD and ATI to get better deal and have less work in OS X

[DoFoT9]

Mini uses laptop chips :p
what you think im a n00b or something :P

Too much hassle for just iMac and as I said, Apple should use only AMD and ATI to get better deal and have less work in OS X
thats true. it would take ALOT of effort..... not that i want AMD in the mac picture anyway.

[pilot1226]

AMD hasn't been the top since Intel figured out how to beat the Athlon64 design (which was brilliant, by the way). I would probably not buy an iMac if it only shipped with AMD based processors.

Intel i5/i7 is by far the industry leader for home computers.

[DeSnousa]

Really is any modern PC chip that slow, I would have no issue as long as email, net, iTunes etc ran fine. The fact is all chips run great with what most people want to use them for, so why not go the value version if it meant cheaper Macs?

[Hellhammer]

Really is any modern PC chip that slow, I would have no issue as long as email, net, iTunes etc ran fine. The fact is all chips run great with what most people want to use them for, so why not go the value version if it meant cheaper Macs?

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

[skaertus]

Apple could use an AMD processor in its high-end iMac. The near future of AMD processors looks very promising to me.

Intel processors are very expensive. The company has no plans to replace the i5-750 and the i7-860 (which come inside the top iMacs) in the near future. Instead, Intel is set to release expensive Core i7-870S and Core i7-880 chips, which Apple will not use in its iMacs.

AMD, on the other hand, will release cheap six-core processors this April, its "Thurban" line. The top-range Phenom II X6 1090T, with six cores and a 3.2 GHz clock, is set to cost US$ 299, just a little more than the Core i7-860 2.8 GHz (which costs US$ 284). However, this processor has a TDP of 125W. Apple could put in the iMac the T1055, which will have a TDP of 95W (identical to the i5-750 and the i7-860), will have 6 cores running at 2.8 GHz and will cost US$ 195 (about the same as the i5). The Phenom II X4 965 (quad-core, 3.4 GHz) has about the same performance as the Core i5-750, so the T1055 will probably perform way better.

I have no idea on which AMD processor Apple could put inside the low-end iMacs (top-range AMD processors consume more than the required 65W), but they may probably come out with something.

I don't see a transition to AMD as a bad idea. Intel still has the best processors, but the prices are becoming prohibitive to most consumers and Apple won't include the top-range processors in its machines. Intel already has a six-core processor, but it costs US$ 999, a rip-off which is simply not worth it. Intel is set to release a cheaper six-core in Q3, for US$ 562. Average consumers will be stuck with the same old Intel quad-core processors for ever and ever. Intel has the best technology, but it is just holding back the evolution of the computer industry by refusing to make it available at affordable prices.

AMD, on the other hand, could attract Apple by offering lower prices and custom processors. Intel is showing to everyone it doesn't need Apple. AMD, on the other hand, is a smaller company and a link with a premium brand such as Apple would mean a lot. I think the transition makes perfect sense.

[DeSnousa]

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

I do agree that Macs are not cheap, however does AMD in lower end Macs make it appear that much cheaper. Macs are dedicated hardware that is not comparable to other pcs i.e. they are not upgradable, the fact is if Apple supported AMD their chips would be valid for years to come and be supported, the reason I pay a premium.

The G4 was crap compared to the G5 yet Apple sucessfully sold them.

[lyptt]

ohhhh yea, making OSX compatible with AMD is a HUGE task. apple is working on iphone os4 versions now, and they dont have many other workers lying around!

No it isn't, otherwise AMD hackintosh distros wouldn't exist.

All it requires is some reworking of the kernel to be more compatible with the AMD architecture, and some work on the drivers. Very do-able.

[skaertus]

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

Apple products are not cheap, but the processors inside the Macs are cheap ones. Apple could use better processors if it moved to AMD, as AMD could offer a better price/performance ratio.

[Hellhammer]

No it isn't, otherwise AMD hackintosh distros wouldn't exist.

All it requires is some reworking of the kernel to be more compatible with the AMD architecture, and some work on the drivers. Very do-able.

Sure it wouldn't be hard to make it WORK but would have to make the support a lot better than crappy Hackintosh ways. I doubt AMD Hackintosh can fully utilize the power of CPU, sure it'll run but do you want to use only 20% of the CPU's real power?

Apple products are not cheap, but the processors inside the Macs are cheap ones. Apple could use better processors if it moved to AMD, as AMD could offer a better price/performance ratio.

In desktop CPUs, yes but in laptop CPUs, no. As I said, AMD mobile chips top out at 2.4GHz which is dual core, same as we now have in base 13" MBP.

Computers have other components than just CPU, remember that. E.g. 27" iMac is IMO pretty cheap for what you get as for 1699$, you get 27" IPS panel display with LED backlight. 27" Dell is +1000$ and then add CPU, PSU, RAM, GPU....

AMD would mostly be downgrade not upgrade

[MacHamster68]

ok not amd ..then, you just look at pure benchmark figures , and then the only thing you do on your i7 is writing a letter using microsoft word , and for games the processor is only marginal important more important is a really good graphics card is far more important and ram ram ram and at the moment apple is wasting money for a i7 instead of giving the iMac a proper craphics card as the one installed is absolute low end

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

[skaertus]

In desktop CPUs, yes but in laptop CPUs, no. As I said, AMD mobile chips top out at 2.4GHz which is dual core, same as we now have in base 13" MBP.

Yes, that is true.

However, I see that AMD will soon launch the Phenom II line of laptop processors, with triple and quad-core options. And the quad-core offerings will have a lower TDP than Intel's. A Phenom II X4 P920 1.6 GHz will consume only 25W and could replace the Core 2 Duo P series which equip the low-end MacBooks. Apple could use the Phenom II X4 N930 2 GHz (35W) to equip MacBook Pros. I don't know yet the performance of these mobile processors, but they are quad core chips and, at least in desktops, AMD quad-core processors seem to offer better performance than Intel dual-core processors with HyperThreading.

If Apple is considering AMD processors, it is certainly not looking at its current line-up.

Computers have other components than just CPU, remember that. E.g. 27" iMac is IMO pretty cheap for what you get as for 1699$, you get 27" IPS panel display with LED backlight. 27" Dell is +1000$ and then add CPU, PSU, RAM, GPU....

AMD would mostly be downgrade not upgrade

The current iMacs are great value because of the LED-backlit IPS 27" screen, but they are far from being cheap machines (i.e. it is worth it, but it's still a lot of dollars).

Anyway, my point is: Intel chips are better, indeed, but a transition to AMD doesn't necessarily mean a downgrade. I am talking specifics here, not in general. Apple uses mid-range Intel processors, and AMD may be able to offer that.

I mean, Apple is never going to put a US$ 999 six-core Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz inside a US$ 1,999 iMac (which current has a Core i5-750). But it may put a US$ 195 six-core Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz, because it will cost the same as a Core i5. If the performance of the T1055 is superior to the performance of the Core i5, that would be a great change. This would be an upgrade, at least for me.

[Hellhammer]

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

Look at your electricity bill with ATI 5970 and you will see why...

Mac Pro is the only Mac what uses desktop GPUs and could even use ATI 5970. No matter what CPU in iMac, it can never handle 300W GPU as mobile 4850 uses ~60W, so it'd be 5 times hotter making iMac a piece of melt aluminum plus iMacs currently carry 330W PSU so ATI 5970 would need its own PSU

[Hellhammer]

Yes, that is true.

However, I see that AMD will soon launch the Phenom II line of laptop processors, with triple and quad-core options. And the quad-core offerings will have a lower TDP than Intel's. A Phenom II X4 P920 1.6 GHz will consume only 25W and could replace the Core 2 Duo P series which equip the low-end MacBooks. Apple could use the Phenom II X4 N930 2 GHz (35W) to equip MacBook Pros. I don't know yet the performance of these mobile processors, but they are quad core chips and, at least in desktops, AMD quad-core processors seem to offer better performance than Intel dual-core processors with HyperThreading.

If Apple is considering AMD processors, it is certainly not looking at its current line-up.



The current iMacs are great value because of the LED-backlit IPS 27" screen, but they are far from being cheap machines (i.e. it is worth it, but it's still a lot of dollars).

Anyway, my point is: Intel chips are better, indeed, but a transition to AMD doesn't necessarily mean a downgrade. I am talking specifics here, not in general. Apple uses mid-range Intel processors, and AMD may be able to offer that.

I mean, Apple is never going to put a US$ 999 six-core Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz inside a US$ 1,999 iMac (which current has a Core i5-750). But it may put a US$ 195 six-core Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz, because it will cost the same as a Core i5. If the performance of the T1055 is superior to the performance of the Core i5, that would be a great change. This would be an upgrade, at least for me.

Do you have an article about those new AMD chips? Haven't heard of them would be nice to read about them.

Also, what is the TDP of Phenom x6 T1055? 27" can handle 95W, but doubt it can handle any hotter one. Those new AMDs have Turbo which is very nice extra too.

I still think Intel wins clock for clock, right?

[skaertus]

ok not amd ..then, you just look at pure benchmark figures , and then the only thing you do on your i7 is writing a letter using microsoft word , and for games the processor is only marginal important more important is a really good graphics card is far more important and ram ram ram and at the moment apple is wasting money for a i7 instead of giving the iMac a proper craphics card as the one installed is absolute low end

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

Power consumption is an important issue with iMacs and with all-in-ones in general. That's why Apple used to put mobile processors inside the iMacs. Apple has to put a power supply unit inside the iMac, and the iMac is not supposed to run very hot. There are size and heat constraints, just like what happens in laptops. Because it is an all-in-one, an iMac behaves much like a laptop. The 27" iMac has more space and thus Apple was able to put a 95W processor inside of it. But I don't think Apple could put a 95W processor inside the 21.5" iMac.

Plus, Apple would not be able to put an ATI 5970 inside a 27" iMac, because it would run hot and the PSU would not be able to handle its required 300W.

Apple computers are not made for games. There are few games available for Mac OS (at least comparing to PCs) and Apple does not design computers for such market. Macs are computers for the average guy, for happy families, for creative artists, for graphic designers, for video editors. Not for gamers. That's not Apple's philosophy. The processor is still the most important part of a computer and an i7 offers a performance boost in several tasks. Apple is putting better video cards probably because it wants to take advantage of its GPGPU OpenCL technology. If you're looking for games, you'll have to buy a PC...

[skaertus]

Do you have an article about those new AMD chips? Haven't heard of them would be nice to read about them.

Also, what is the TDP of Phenom x6 T1055? 27" can handle 95W, but doubt it can handle any hotter one. Those new AMDs have Turbo which is very nice extra too.

I still think Intel wins clock for clock, right?

Yes, take a look here for an article on the new mobile AMD processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html)

Phenom II X6 T0155 will come in two versions, and the cooler one will run at 95W (the other one will run at 125W, and the TDP is the only difference between them, as far as I'm concerned - price will probably be different too). It will be the fastest AMD six-core processor running at 95W. It runs at 2.8 GHz and it may reach 3.33 GHz in Turbo Mode.

The T1090, which will be AMD's fastest six-core offering, will run at 3.2 GHz and will reach 3.6 GHz in Turbo Mode. It will consume 125W, but maybe AMD could produce a 95W custom version exclusively for Apple (just like Intel has done in the past)... who knows?

You're right, Intel still wins clock for clock, and by a large margin. The Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz is only marginally faster than the Core i5-750 2.66 GHz.

[Hellhammer]

Yes, take a look here for an article on the new mobile AMD processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html)

Phenom II X6 T0155 will come in two versions, and the cooler one will run at 95W (the other one will run at 125W, and the TDP is the only difference between them, as far as I'm concerned - price will probably be different too). It will be the fastest AMD six-core processor running at 95W. It runs at 2.8 GHz and it may reach 3.33 GHz in Turbo Mode.

The T1090, which will be AMD's fastest six-core offering, will run at 3.2 GHz and will reach 3.6 GHz in Turbo Mode. It will consume 125W, but maybe AMD could produce a 95W custom version exclusively for Apple (just like Intel has done in the past)... who knows?

You're right, Intel still wins clock for clock, and by a large margin. The Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz is only marginally faster than the Core i5-750 2.66 GHz.

Thanks! Hmm, 45W CPUs are too hot for MBPs so that'd be 2GHz quad or 2.8GHz dual. I'm interested on the prices though.

I doubt AMD can make 3.2GHz 6-core with 95W TDP anytime soon, as they would come up with one if they could. Otherwise, those CPUs look very good, I'm sure I'll be building a lot PCs with them when they are out!

[skaertus]

Thanks! Hmm, 45W CPUs are too hot for MBPs so that'd be 2GHz quad or 2.8GHz dual. I'm interested on the prices though.


Yes, Apple would have to use the 2 GHz quad-core for the MacBook Pros. Still looks pretty good, doesn't it?

And Apple could use the 1.6 GHz quad-core for the MacBook and for the low-end MacBook Pro, as it consumes only 25W, the same as the P-series Core 2 Duo. And I guess it would probably be better than a 2.4 or a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I haven't heard of the prices yet.

It seems to me that Intel Nehalem processors are too hot. Intel hasn't managed to deliver a quad-core mobile Nehalem running cool at decent clock speeds. Apple won't put these processors inside their MacBooks Pro.

And the only 25W Nehalem processors available are the Core i7-620LM and the i7-640LM, both of which are too expensive for putting inside the MacBook and the 13" MacBook Pro.

Apple will have to stick with Core 2 Duo for its 13" laptops and with dual-core processors for the remaining MacBooks, and that will only change after the launch of Sandy Bridge, unless Apple moves to AMD.

I doubt AMD can make 3.2GHz 6-core with 95W TDP anytime soon, as they would come up with one if they could. Otherwise, those CPUs look very good, I'm sure I'll be building a lot PCs with them when they are out!

Yes, it may be. But perhaps AMD is able to make 95W 3.2 GHz 6-core processors and, due to the price, they may be just not worth to be launch anytime soon.

[Hellhammer]

Yes, Apple would have to use the 2 GHz quad-core for the MacBook Pros. Still looks pretty good, doesn't it?

And Apple could use the 1.6 GHz quad-core for the MacBook and for the low-end MacBook Pro, as it consumes only 25W, the same as the P-series Core 2 Duo. And I guess it would probably be better than a 2.4 or a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I haven't heard of the prices yet.

It seems to me that Intel Nehalem processors are too hot. Intel hasn't managed to deliver a quad-core mobile Nehalem running cool at decent clock speeds. Apple won't put these processors inside their MacBooks Pro.

And the only 25W Nehalem processors available are the Core i7-620LM and the i7-640LM, both of which are too expensive for putting inside the MacBook and the 13" MacBook Pro.

Apple will have to stick with Core 2 Duo for its 13" laptops and with dual-core processors for the remaining MacBooks, and that will only change after the launch of Sandy Bridge, unless Apple moves to AMD.



Yes, it may be. But perhaps AMD is able to make 95W 3.2 GHz 6-core processors and, due to the price, they may be just not worth to be launch anytime soon.

No quad in low-end for few years.. Do they have Turbo? Without it, 1.6GHz is useless as there aren't enough apps to take advantage of quad so apps that can't will be very slow due low clock speed. All current mobile quads are too hot for MBPs (they are 45W and MBPs use 35W), though I'm sure Apple could improve the cooling system and fit one in there but we just got update without them so..

So far there is no quad core Westmere (32nm Nehalem), only Xeons which are 6-core with two cores disabled.

Early benchmarks are showing Sandy Bridge is looking enormously good and it'll be a significant upgrade in CPUs, so if Intel can come up with reasonably priced SBs, AMD has to do something major.

[skaertus]

No quad in low-end for few years.. Do they have Turbo? Without it, 1.6GHz is useless as there aren't enough apps to take advantage of quad so apps that can't will be very slow due low clock speed.

The Phenom II P920 1.6 GHz will use in fact 25W, so it may be used in low-end 13" MacBooks. But you're right, the clock is too slow for single-threaded applications. Apple may enhance it with the "Grand Central" feature of Snow Leopard, though. I have no idea if these mobile processors will have a Turbo Mode.

All current mobile quads are too hot for MBPs (they are 45W and MBPs use 35W), though I'm sure Apple could improve the cooling system and fit one in there but we just got update without them so..

Intel Core i7-720QM and 820QM use 45W; the i7-920XM uses a whopping 55W! Apple may enhance its cooling system to handle these processors. However, the MagSafe of the MacBook Pro handles a total of 85W, so, unless Apple increases this TDP, I don't think there will be room for a 45W processor.

So far there is no quad core Westmere (32nm Nehalem), only Xeons which are 6-core with two cores disabled.

At this point, I don't see Intel launching a 32nm quad-core Nehalem. I think we won't see them before Sandy Bridge is launched.

The Core i7-980X "Gulftown" is 32nm, but it is a six-core processor.

Early benchmarks are showing Sandy Bridge is looking enormously good and it'll be a significant upgrade in CPUs, so if Intel can come up with reasonably priced SBs, AMD has to do something major.

I haven't seen any benchmark for Sandy Bridge yet. Where have you seen them?

For what I've read on Sandy Bridge (including this recent article on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20002617-64.html), I thought Intel would focus on power efficiency, on mobile technology and on fighting NVIDIA's GPUs, instead of delivering sheer performance.

Intel of course can come up with reasonably priced SBs. It can come up with reasonably priced Gulftowns either. But it doesn't want to, and that's the problem with Intel.

[Hellhammer]

The Phenom II P920 1.6 GHz will use in fact 25W, so it may be used in low-end 13" MacBooks. But you're right, the clock is too slow for single-threaded applications. Apple may enhance it with the "Grand Central" feature of Snow Leopard, though. I have no idea if these mobile processors will have a Turbo Mode.

It would be odd if whole laptop lineup only used two processors, 1.6GHz and 2GHz quad

Grand Central is for developers so they can more easily adopt multicore support but it won't make single-threaded app multithreaded if it isn't coded to be multicore

At this point, I don't see Intel launching a 32nm quad-core Nehalem. I think we won't see them before Sandy Bridge is launched.

There has been rumors about Lynnfield and Clarksfield going 32nm in mid 2010 but Intel hasn't commented that

"DailyTech has received information that Core i5 Lynnfield and Clarksfield CPUs might be replaced by quad core Westmere variants in the middle of 2010. Intel refuses to comment on unannounced products, although they did state that "additional 32nm products will follow in 2010"."

http://www.dailytech.com/Gulftown+is+the+Flagship+of+32nm+Westmere+Line/article14227.htm

The Core i7-980X "Gulftown" is 32nm, but it is a six-core processor.

Yeah but there are several 32nm quad core Xeons which uses the same chips as 6-core Gulftown but two of the cores have been disabled, just like AMD Phenom x2s which have four cores but two disabled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors

I haven't seen any benchmark for Sandy Bridge yet. Where have you seen them?

I haven't seen any, I've just read that it'll be FAST but so was Nehalem compared to Core

For what I've read on Sandy Bridge (including this recent article on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20002617-64.html), I thought Intel would focus on power efficiency, on mobile technology and on fighting NVIDIA's GPUs, instead of delivering sheer performance.

Yeah, they will likely top out at 95W.

Intel of course can come up with reasonably priced SBs. It can come up with reasonably priced Gulftowns either. But it doesn't want to, and that's the problem with Intel.

Sandy Bridge is micro-architecture, while Gulftown is just a codename for high-end desktop CPUs, so there'll be CPUs for all price categories, maybe not launched at the same time but sooner than later, just like there is Arrandale and Clarkdale in Nehalem

[kufford]

If you look at the list prices for the intel lines and then Apple's corresponding price increase to upgrade the CPU, it's readily apparent that the cost of CPUs are not the true reason for the prices that Apple charges. Apple would only be considering switching to AMD for a technical advantage, they have no concerns with passing on their costs on to their consumers.

[skaertus]

It would be odd if whole laptop lineup only used two processors, 1.6GHz and 2GHz quad


Very weird indeed. Apple may use dual and triple cores. Or it may mix AMD and Intel processors (this would be nice).

There has been rumors about Lynnfield and Clarksfield going 32nm in mid 2010 but Intel hasn't commented that

"DailyTech has received information that Core i5 Lynnfield and Clarksfield CPUs might be replaced by quad core Westmere variants in the middle of 2010. Intel refuses to comment on unannounced products, although they did state that "additional 32nm products will follow in 2010"."

http://www.dailytech.com/Gulftown+is+the+Flagship+of+32nm+Westmere+Line/article14227.htm

I've heard that too. But, at this point, I seriously doubt it. Intel has released a 45nm quad-core (the i7-930) after the launch of 32nm. And it is set to release another 45nm processor, the i7-880.

Yeah but there are several 32nm quad core Xeons which uses the same chips as 6-core Gulftown but two of the cores have been disabled, just like AMD Phenom x2s which have four cores but two disabled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors

Ah, OK! But they're still Gulftowns, not Lynnfields.

I haven't seen any, I've just read that it'll be FAST but so was Nehalem compared to Core

Hummm. I hope it is fast. However, I remember that when Intel launched Nehalem, the focus was performance: HyperThreading, Turbo Boost, etc. It was supposed to be a Core 2 killer. I don't see that with Sandy Bridge. Intel seems to be taking a different approach: AVX to enhance audio/video capabilities (meaning: you don't need NVIDIA), power efficiency (meaning: more laptop processors).

I've also read that the first Sandy Bridge chips will be mobile and quad-core desktops. The top-range six-core Nehalem (Gulftowns) will remain as Intel's best offering for a while.

Yeah, they will likely top out at 95W.

Nehalem was clearly a processor designed for desktops. Intel took a year to launch the mobile version, and it runs too hot. Sandy Bridge will fix that, but, unless I see some benchmarks that show otherwise, I don't think Intel is putting much effort on increasing performance.

Sandy Bridge is micro-architecture, while Gulftown is just a codename for high-end desktop CPUs, so there'll be CPUs for all price categories, maybe not launched at the same time but sooner than later, just like there is Arrandale and Clarkdale in Nehalem

Yes, there will be Sandy Bridges for all price ranges. But there will also be Sandy Bridges for all performance ranges. It doesn't really matter to most consumers (including me) which architecture the processor uses. Performance matters. Price matters. And the price/performance ratio matters. Intel has become very greedy. Twenty years ago, the performance of Intel processors nearly doubled from one year to the other. Nowadays, I've gotta be happy if I get a 20% speed bump in Intel mid-range processors from one year to the other.

[skaertus]

If you look at the list prices for the intel lines and then Apple's corresponding price increase to upgrade the CPU, it's readily apparent that the cost of CPUs are not the true reason for the prices that Apple charges. Apple would only be considering switching to AMD for a technical advantage, they have no concerns with passing on their costs on to their consumers.

OK, but if you look at the evolution of Apple machines, you'll see that Apple has replaced CPUs with newer ones which were similar priced and which had a similar TDP. Apple seeks to maintain its profit margins. If Apple changes to AMD, it will be to save its own costs or to increase performance for the same cost. Macs will probably not get cheaper.

[Pachang]

couldn't apple just not be processor exclusive and have amd and intel cpu's in their lineup?

It sucks how intel aren't really making 32nm procs for suitable for the high end iMac.

[Hellhammer]

It sucks how intel aren't really making 32nm procs for suitable for the high end iMac.

Well, AMD has zero 32nm CPUs...

[pilot1226]

Speaking from a formerly huge AMD fanboy (had them since even before the Thunderbirds came out in `98, AMD 486/66 lol...)

Stay away.

Intel-4-Life now. It's worth the price premium. Intel's a stable company that will always be there. AMD got the jump on them with 64-bit chips and dual-core chips, but Intel PERFECTS the technology and blows AMD out of the water.

I could care less about how my CPU works with my GPU because they're the same vendor. It's not like we're playing a game of telephone here, it's a piece of hardware.

It's funny watching the two major chip companies (remeber Cyrix? lol) compete with each other over the last decade. Intel was always very big on clockspeeds and AMD was always focused on doing the most efficiency per cycle (which is why AMD64 chips around 2.0GHz would outperform the Intel Pentium4 chips around 3GHz). Technology will always improve and the competition will just hasten new technology.

As for me, I don't care what they do but I'd prefer they left it intel-only because it's simpler from a software standpoint to manage your hardware when you only have, say, 4 or 5 different hardware configurations per model. Add AMD chips in there and you now increase that significantly.

Still being optimistic for an updated iMac released following WWDC in June so I can get a nice 27" plus an Airport Extreme.

[unixfool]

Speaking from a formerly huge AMD fanboy (had them since even before the Thunderbirds came out in `98, AMD 486/66 lol...)

Stay away.

Intel-4-Life now. It's worth the price premium. Intel's a stable company that will always be there. AMD got the jump on them with 64-bit chips and dual-core chips, but Intel PERFECTS the technology and blows AMD out of the water.

I could care less about how my CPU works with my GPU because they're the same vendor. It's not like we're playing a game of telephone here, it's a piece of hardware.

It's funny watching the two major chip companies (remeber Cyrix? lol) compete with each other over the last decade. Intel was always very big on clockspeeds and AMD was always focused on doing the most efficiency per cycle (which is why AMD64 chips around 2.0GHz would outperform the Intel Pentium4 chips around 3GHz). Technology will always improve and the competition will just hasten new technology.

As for me, I don't care what they do but I'd prefer they left it intel-only because it's simpler from a software standpoint to manage your hardware when you only have, say, 4 or 5 different hardware configurations per model. Add AMD chips in there and you now increase that significantly.

Still being optimistic for an updated iMac released following WWDC in June so I can get a nice 27" plus an Airport Extreme.

This is ALL subjective opinion.

To each his/her own.

I use both...nothing wrong with either one. The last thing the world wants is for AMD to tank, because then you'll only have ONE choice. The choice isn't bad but competition pushes innovation. No competition, no innovation, and prices rise. Consumers drive the market. If AMD were doing bad business-wise, then AMD would tank. Evidently, they're doing something right. I'll root for the little guy when, if the big guy wins, my choices are gone.

BTW, isn't Intel facing several suits because of apparently monopolizing (I believe one of these was actually filed by the FTC)?

[DoFoT9]

Apple could use an AMD processor in its high-end iMac. The near future of AMD processors looks very promising to me.
uuuhhh... im sorry, but no. this will not happen. the AMD processors wont perform better then the Intel counterparts.

Intel processors are very expensive. The company has no plans to replace the i5-750 and the i7-860 (which come inside the top iMacs) in the near future. Instead, Intel is set to release expensive Core i7-870S and Core i7-880 chips, which Apple will not use in its iMacs.
and??.....

AMD, on the other hand, will release cheap six-core processors this April, its "Thurban" line. The top-range Phenom II X6 1090T, with six cores and a 3.2 GHz clock, is set to cost US$ 299, just a little more than the Core i7-860 2.8 GHz (which costs US$ 284). However, this processor has a TDP of 125W. Apple could put in the iMac the T1055, which will have a TDP of 95W (identical to the i5-750 and the i7-860), will have 6 cores running at 2.8 GHz and will cost US$ 195 (about the same as the i5). The Phenom II X4 965 (quad-core, 3.4 GHz) has about the same performance as the Core i5-750, so the T1055 will probably perform way better.
ok seriously... think about what you just said.. this T1055, same clock as the i7-860, all it really has going for it is the fact that its 6-core. the performance of it wont be that great, and rebuilding OSX/putting it into the imac/potentially losing deals with Intel wont be justifiable from one AMD chip - that isnt even going to compare in reality.

i do agree with what you said about the pricing of the Intel processors etc

No it isn't, otherwise AMD hackintosh distros wouldn't exist.

All it requires is some reworking of the kernel to be more compatible with the AMD architecture, and some work on the drivers. Very do-able.
i dont know about that.

OK, but if you look at the evolution of Apple machines, you'll see that Apple has replaced CPUs with newer ones which were similar priced and which had a similar TDP. Apple seeks to maintain its profit margins. If Apple changes to AMD, it will be to save its own costs or to increase performance for the same cost. Macs will probably not get cheaper.
thats for sure - the price of apple macs wont go down - with or without AMD.

couldn't apple just not be processor exclusive and have amd and intel cpu's in their lineup?

It sucks how intel aren't really making 32nm procs for suitable for the high end iMac.
no i dont think thats possible. then it wouldnt be apple, and performance would be..well...windows like ;)

[skaertus]

uuuhhh... im sorry, but no. this will not happen. the AMD processors wont perform better then the Intel counterparts.

You're right, AMD processors will not perform better than its Intel counterparts. Still, AMD is going to deliver a whole line of 6-core processors for a quarter of the price of Intel's offering. And AMD is gonna deliver quad-core mobile processors that runs at 25W and 35W (Intel's coolest quad-core offering runs at 45W). There's some value in all of it. The Mac processors are all about price and power consumption, not about pure performance. And AMD is going to deliver that. The future of AMD looks better than its past 2 years.

and??.....

Intel will not update its Core i5-750 and Core i7-860 in the near future. The high-end iMac will probably remain with the same processors. Intel is sitting in a very comfortable position right now, without serious competition from AMD to its high-end processors. I seriously hope AMD catches up, so Intel will stop ripping off its high-end consumers.

ok seriously... think about what you just said.. this T1055, same clock as the i7-860, all it really has going for it is the fact that its 6-core. the performance of it wont be that great, and rebuilding OSX/putting it into the imac/potentially losing deals with Intel wont be justifiable from one AMD chip - that isnt even going to compare in reality.

The T1055 is the same clock as i7-860 and has 50% more cores. I don't know how this processor will perform. However, Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz performs about the same as Core i5-750. Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz will certainly perform better than that. And for the same price of a Core i5-750. I don't know how much Apple will have to modify its Mac OS to fit AMD processors, though.

As for Intel deals, I think Apple has already lost them when it chose to use NVIDIA 9400M in its laptops. Since then, Intel has never made another custom chip for the Macs, nor has it given any preferential treatment to Apple. I suspect Intel considers NVIDIA a more dangerous competitor than AMD. In fact, I think Apple could even use the possibility of adopting AMD chips to have more bargaining power in its negotiations with Intel.

[Hellhammer]

The T1055 is the same clock as i7-860 and has 50% more cores. I don't know how this processor will perform. However, Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz performs about the same as Core i5-750. Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz will certainly perform better than that. And for the same price of a Core i5-750. I don't know how much Apple will have to modify its Mac OS to fit AMD processors, though.

As for Intel deals, I think Apple has already lost them when it chose to use NVIDIA 9400M in its laptops. Since then, Intel has never made another custom chip for the Macs, nor has it given any preferential treatment to Apple. I suspect Intel considers NVIDIA a more dangerous competitor than AMD. In fact, I think Apple could even use the possibility of adopting AMD chips to have more bargaining power in its negotiations with Intel.

Only problem is that there aren't much apps that can utilize 6 cores so IMO it'd be useless. Keep in mind that Intels have Hyper-Threading which gives up to 30% boost if app can take advantage of it. IF Lynnfield goes 32nm, they will outperform any AMD CPU.

AMD concentrates more on low-end servers and low-end computer and it's not bad choice, a lot money is made in that market

[skaertus]

Only problem is that there aren't much apps that can utilize 6 cores so IMO it'd be useless. Keep in mind that Intels have Hyper-Threading which gives up to 30% boost if app can take advantage of it. IF Lynnfield goes 32nm, they will outperform any AMD CPU.

Not useless. You may get good performance by running many apps simultaneosly.

AMD concentrates more on low-end servers and low-end computer and it's not bad choice, a lot money is made in that market

Yes, but there's also products for the high-end market...

[Aegelward]

AMD partnership could be fruitful for both parties,

Creating an ATI graphics core for the iPhone and iPad could give AMD a rival to the Tegra for example.

Of course... Jobs, and by extensions Apple won't let an AMD processor into their range unless they approve of it wholeheartedly. It could be a couple of years if they are going to have to design a whole new chip for them.

[pilot1226]

I think you may be right about intel getting a lot of complaints about monopolies - if memory serves there were a few filed by the EU.

I think it had more to do with the fact that Intel had some type of agreement with certain vendors where they were paid a little extra (or received an absurd discount) on OEM chips if they were to not use AMD chips.

Let me try to explain, because that could be confusing:

Pilot's Computer Shop has AMD and Intel chips. The owner buys them for $50 per chip from the manufacturer.

Intel and Pilot's Computer make an agreement that Pilot's Computer will stop buying AMD chips and Intel agrees that they will sell the chips to Pilot for $40, so it was "win-win", but illegal because it's collusion.

Or something like that. I used to post constantly on the AMD Forums (Folding@Home!) before I made my switch back in `04.

I agree - Intel NEEDS AMD to stay afloat because it prevents them from becoming a complete monopoly, just like the way Windows NEEDED Apple to stay afloat during the rocky times in the `90s (and Windows bought a bunch of Apple stock!).

So, either way, that's fine, but keep your budget chips away from my iMac. If you are looking for a budget system, then an Apple Computer is simply not for you, go buy an eMachines.

If a price difference of $50 to $150 is really the deciding factor on whether or not you can purchase an Apple computer, take your money and put it in a savings account. You obviously aren't in a financial position to purchase a computer.

[DoFoT9]

You're right, AMD processors will not perform better than its Intel counterparts. Still, AMD is going to deliver a whole line of 6-core processors for a quarter of the price of Intel's offering. And AMD is gonna deliver quad-core mobile processors that runs at 25W and 35W (Intel's coolest quad-core offering runs at 45W). There's some value in all of it. The Mac processors are all about price and power consumption, not about pure performance. And AMD is going to deliver that. The future of AMD looks better than its past 2 years.
i sure hope that you are right. the 6-core do sound, but as HellHammer said - nothing can bloody utilise it!

we all know that apple isnt about pure performance (except maybe in the MP) - if they were we most certainly wouldnt be discussing AMD possibly being adopted :P

Intel will not update its Core i5-750 and Core i7-860 in the near future. The high-end iMac will probably remain with the same processors. Intel is sitting in a very comfortable position right now, without serious competition from AMD to its high-end processors. I seriously hope AMD catches up, so Intel will stop ripping off its high-end consumers.
GOOD!. to be honest with you - i hope they dont upgrade those models anytime soon. i purchased the i7 when it came out, i want it to be the "top" model imac for a while yet ;) i bought it at this time for that one reason - to last as long as possible. im sure many other users mirror my opinion. there REALLY is no need to upgrade the CPUs each 6 (or so) months - why dont they focus on HDD technology or something!

The T1055 is the same clock as i7-860 and has 50% more cores. I don't know how this processor will perform. However, Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz performs about the same as Core i5-750. Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz will certainly perform better than that. And for the same price of a Core i5-750. I don't know how much Apple will have to modify its Mac OS to fit AMD processors, though.
2.66ghz intel, same as 3.4ghz amd? i dont care what you say, no amount of architecture upgrades can equal that massive amount of a performance increase ;) i would hazard a guess and they that they are roughly on par once the 6-cores come out.

who knows though, we will see. thats not entirely relevant though, the point is - that apple would not make users choose between the processors, and the processor speed, and the core count. and also that "core-ness" means nothing these days (NOT MANY APPLICATIONS ARE MULTITHREADED/MULTICORED YET ARGH).

As for Intel deals, I think Apple has already lost them when it chose to use NVIDIA 9400M in its laptops. Since then, Intel has never made another custom chip for the Macs, nor has it given any preferential treatment to Apple. I suspect Intel considers NVIDIA a more dangerous competitor than AMD. In fact, I think Apple could even use the possibility of adopting AMD chips to have more bargaining power in its negotiations with Intel.
possibly. we will see. apple still seems to have some good ties with intel - they got the chips for the imac a week earlier (or so), the last MP was an entire month early! they get a large portion of intels CPU supplies and whatnot.

sorry for late reply btw

[coolbits]

What about 32 core MacPro with two bulldozers (interlagos) next year :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28processor%29

[Leo72]

Speaking from a formerly huge AMD fanboy (had them since even before the Thunderbirds came out in `98, AMD 486/66 lol...)

Stay away.

Intel-4-Life now. It's worth the price premium. Intel's a stable company that will always be there. AMD got the jump on them with 64-bit chips and dual-core chips, but Intel PERFECTS the technology and blows AMD out of the water.

I could care less about how my CPU works with my GPU because they're the same vendor. It's not like we're playing a game of telephone here, it's a piece of hardware.

It's funny watching the two major chip companies (remeber Cyrix? lol) compete with each other over the last decade. Intel was always very big on clockspeeds and AMD was always focused on doing the most efficiency per cycle (which is why AMD64 chips around 2.0GHz would outperform the Intel Pentium4 chips around 3GHz). Technology will always improve and the competition will just hasten new technology.

As for me, I don't care what they do but I'd prefer they left it intel-only because it's simpler from a software standpoint to manage your hardware when you only have, say, 4 or 5 different hardware configurations per model. Add AMD chips in there and you now increase that significantly.

Still being optimistic for an updated iMac released following WWDC in June so I can get a nice 27" plus an Airport Extreme.

Do you think that the next generation is going to have a video card such as HD5850 (mobile version)?

[MacHamster68]

why is apple not simply releasing osx ,so the customer could choose what setup he wants or can afford

ok i just bought a TAM in as new condition which did cost me more then a 21.5 iMac , but thats not the point , its a real Mac and not a pc with a apple sticker , so for me its worth every pence and my next apple product i buy will be a lisa
as i collect old apple products (the lisa is not a Mac but build by apple )

but for a new computer i cant see a point of spending more the £600 and i mean including monitor keyboard and mouse and at the moment i get from apple in that priceclass only a mini without anything and not even apple care

so if apple would make osx multi platform like windows or linux, especially linux as it runs literally on everything without much hassle (depending on the distro) and i would be happy to buy snow leopard for double the price of windows 7 to put it on the computer of my choice as it is the better os
but they should act a bit fast as i dont have time forever and there are deals for new computers out there i cant resist for long and linux works out of the box on them

[definitive]

if they do decide to use amd (which i hope they don't since it has been producing inferior junk for the past few years), then this is what will most likely happen:

apple will release the lower-end systems with amd processors, claiming that they're cheaper (but same as current price), because they use the lower-cost amd cpu's, and they will ignore the fact that the previous, more capable intel systems were the same exact price.

why is apple not simply releasing osx ,so the customer could choose what setup he wants or can afford

because it would cause apple to have additional headaches of dealing with third party drivers and increased amounts of exploits. they'd probably also lose some potential profit which they currently get from their overpriced computers. it would probably make more sense for them to drop their system costs to under $2k rather than have osx work on custom systems. they could then still earn their money, and overall have more sales/customers.

[pilot1226]

Hmm, no, Apple can't release OSX to everyone... That would cripple their computer sales. Part of the lure to use OSX is that you have to pay a price premium compared to IBM-PC equivalent machines. By releasing OSX to everyone, this would essentially kill their sales because the average user would then go run and buy a cheap eMachines or something and throw OSX on it.

Apple also gives you everything you need regardless of your computer choice (except for the Mini or MacPro where you supply your own display). That means you can be sure your wireless, audio, etc. all will work right out of the box, and you won't need to have to buy third-party hardware/software to make it work.

As for the ATI 5000 series cards, I don't know if it's worth it to sacrifice the move from the 4000 desktop series cards (which I believe is what they're using in the i7 now, but it may be underclocked because of space/fan issues?) to the 5000 MOBILE cards.

Granted, the 5000's have DX11 support, but I'm pretty sure that's still in development so unless a lot of games really start to take advantage of it, I'd rather have the faster card. I think Battlefield BC2 is DX11 supported? Not sure of many others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pulling out the data from the deep recesses of my memory from a few months ago, it may have changed.

[Hellhammer]

As for the ATI 5000 series cards, I don't know if it's worth it to sacrifice the move from the 4000 desktop series cards (which I believe is what they're using in the i7 now, but it may be underclocked because of space/fan issues?) to the 5000 MOBILE cards.

Yea, ATI Mobile 4850 is based on desktop 4850 with lower clocks and performance is about the same as desktop 4830.

ATI Mobile 5850 is based on desktop 5770 which is about as good as 4850

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=875286

[raysfan81]

I could see AMDs being used for the lower end machines on Apples scale, could help introduce lower cost macs without terrible performance.

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

That would make one hell of an iMac. I always thought that apple should have offered multiple processors like a PPC in the Mac pro as well as intel, but AMD would be perfectly fine with me.

[Hellhammer]

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

That would make one hell of an iMac. I always thought that apple should have offered multiple processors like a PPC in the Mac pro as well as intel, but AMD would be perfectly fine with me.

The i7 in iMac is faster. That's 125W so too hot, though there is 95W version coming soon

[Leo72]

Can i hope to see mobility radeon hd 5870 in the next generation (i hate long names :p) ?

[Hellhammer]

Can i hope to see mobility radeon hd 5870 in the next generation (i hate long names :p) ?

Likely not ATI 5870 but maybe 5850, but it's not faster than 4850

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=875286

[NintendoFan]

Apple would also have to update OS X to support AMD which may not be very small task.

They're still X86, it wouldn't be that hard at all. It's not like they're going PPC to X86 all over again.

[Sun Baked]

Another chipset to support for Apple, since Apple keeps paring the number of chipsets down all the time ... I doubt Apple would support it due to cost of supporting another architecture.

Repackaging CPUs and chipsets to reduce size and heat/watts used is one thing, adding megabucks in a new chipset from AMD is something else.