Apple Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?

...

Apple is not in the business of cheaper computers. If Apple were to switch to AMD they likely wouldn't drop prices at all and just take a larger profit home. Fortunately Apple can make an OS run fast on almost any hardware and if AMD will custom build a chip it could theoretically speed up the system even though the same chip in a PC would be slower than the intel simply because if Apple can program the OS and design the chip architecture then they can make more from less which is to some extent what OS X does that Windows doesn't do already.

Apple WOULDN'T put inferior AMD chips in Mac's though.

There is obviously something we don't know about. Either way, if they use AMD chips, they would have to be equal to or better than Intels....

To me it sounds like Apple looking for a solution to the Core i5 and i7 licensing problems. So long Nvidia can't make a chipset for a Core i5 chip, the 13" Macbook Pro is never going to get a Core i5. You'll be stuck with Core 2 Duos for years.

They could have AMDs in just the 13" MBP and the MB.

As I recall, Intel's chips didn't have much of a reputation when Apple made the announcement, but Apple must have known about the Core technology chips... and everything worked out.

Here's hoping AMD have something on the horizon. This kind of slithered through the news net, at least for for Apple watchers.

ryuworks said:

To me it sounds like Apple looking for a solution to the Core i5 and i7 licensing problems. So long Nvidia can't make a chipset for a Core i5 chip, the 13" Macbook Pro is never going to get a Core i5. You'll be stuck with Core 2 Duos for years.

They could have AMDs in just the 13" MBP and the MB.

Click to expand...

Might make an interesting MB and Mini update for this year and then they can see how it goes. Would give them more leverage with intel if they started shipping an AMD product.

cwwilson said:

It is interesting to think about this, a combo of ATi/AMD could probably work for the Macintosh line of Apple computers but Intel are just too good to let go of, the Core family of CPUs are practically the best thing going right now and have been for quite some time...Not to say AMD can't ever match them but I haven't seen anything from them that makes me think, "Wow, that's innovative".

Click to expand...

Over the past years, anything "Innovative" has been copied or taken from AMD or a University or even nVidia.

The tech behind Core2 was taken from a University, now the law suits have gone deftly quiet. Arrandale for example is a cheap copy of Fusion, except its not even Fusion, its two chips slapped into one CPU package. Labaree was made from advice given to them by nVidia in exchange for a bus license. Intel refused them a new license but still have all that info nVidia gave them.

Its just like when Intel had QuadCore and DualCore because they slapped two chips together while AMD had a true DualCore and QuadCore design. It seems that Intel's view of increasing size is slapping two things together, like getting 64-bit by merging two 32-bit values. A lot of the Nehalem tech is rehashed old technologies like netburst and P4 style hyper-threading.

AMD is responsible for the entire X86 industry for having simultaneous 32/64-bit processing.

AMD is a very innovative company, they don't have any problems coming up with ideas. They just have that inexperienced engineering team, and its like the execs don't seem to notice.

miniroll32 said:

Apple WOULDN'T put inferior AMD chips in Mac's though.
There is obviously something we don't know about. Either way, if they use AMD chips, they would have to be equal to or better than Intels....

Click to expand...

Its not like Apple is using cream-of-the-crop chips anyway. If it did, Macs would cost around about a few hundred more.

Ned Flanders said:

Who else but me believes that AMD and Apple are not discussing about the current AMD product line but the upcoming Bobcat and Bulldozer architecture?

Click to expand...

I appreciate that, but my post was only in the present tense.

cmaier said:

Apple can demand all it wants. AMD can't deliver.

Click to expand...

Yes cmaier, we all know how pessimistic you are of AMD. The engineering team is (obviously) getting better, each release of K10 has been closing the gap between AMD and Intel.

Just remember AMD powers the fastest computer in the world.

cleric said:

Just remember AMD powers the fastest computer in the world.

Click to expand...

Actually, the opteron chips are only there to "control" the Cell/B.E. processors.

AlexH said:

Can't deliver based on what evidence? They've delivered very nice, very fast processors in the past. They delivered chips that matched and surpassed Pentium III and IV chips in speed and price/performance ratio. They haven't always delivered the fastest chips, but neither has Intel. They compete. The roadmap from AMD indicates some really nice chips on the horizon.

Click to expand...

The evidence is that when the DID compete they had people like Fred Weber and his team. That team left years ago, and AMD hasn't competed since. And the people they currently have don't even care.

cmaier said:

The evidence is that when the DID compete they had people like Fred Weber and his team. That team left years ago, and AMD hasn't competed since. And the people they currently have don't even care.

Click to expand...

Speed bumping to 3.4Ghz.



Wait, why did they even get a degree that gave them the skills to design chips if they don't care? Or are you just emotionally throwing judgment around.

MorphingDragon said:

Yes cmaier, we all know how pessimistic you are of AMD. The engineering team is (obviously) getting better, each release of K10 has been closing the gap between AMD and Intel.

Click to expand...

LOL. As if the stuff that's out is "K10."

MorphingDragon said:

Speed bumping to 3.4Ghz.
Wait, why did they even get a degree that gave them the skills to design chips if they don't care?

Click to expand...

They used to care. Now they don't.

cmaier said:

LOL. As if the stuff that's out is "K10."

Click to expand...

My mistake, I should've said K10 engineering sample 31.

Looks like Apple saw Intel's financial report and decided that Intel was making too high a percentage of the profit in the industry. This is purely a bargaining technique, though Intel's reticence on the video card issue makes me wonder whether there's a glimmer of a chance for AMD. The inferior power characteristics make it unlikely though.

Interesting

I think that this is very unlikely because Apple has been using only Intel processors and it has even taken certain steps to make sure that Mac OS X won't run on other processors.

joshh2o said:

I think that this is very unlikely because Apple has been using only Intel processors and it has even taken certain steps to make sure that Mac OS X won't run on other processors.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

The only thing Apple needs to do to get Mac OSX running on AMD systems is to decrypt the CPUIDs. Luckily for Apple, such a tool already exists and is used by the OSX86 scene.

MorphingDragon said:

Wrong.

The only thing Apple needs to do to get Mac OSX running on AMD systems is to decrypt the CPUIDs. Luckily for Apple, such a tool already exists and is used by the OSX86 scene.

Click to expand...

We [NeXT] ran internal test builds of Openstep 4.2 and Rhapsody on 4 architectures shortly after the merger with Apple.

We discussed Itanium and passed. x86_64 test builds were done for years before officially announcing Intel to replace IBM's custom PowerPC 970.

ARM is the 5th CPU major platform OS X has been tested and 4th to release on.

What a dreadful thread. I was really annoying to have to churn through 21 pages of mostly emotional and uninformed crap to read some of the few gems from people who actually knew what they were talking about.

This is interesting. This is good news. This could mean something VERY cool is on the horizon.

Also, there is MUCH more to a computer than CPU power. For instance, for VAST majority of us out there, what do you think will improve everyday usage: an i7 quad or an SSD? If you chose the i7 you're a putz.

What's most important: the GPU or the CPU? Is it better to have a GREAT CPU and dreadful GPU (current Intel integrated offerings) or have a good CPU and an excellent GPU? Is CPU speed more important than battery life?

Let me tell you one reason I would never purchase a typical PC again: The Apple track pad. The ease of use, the convenience and the excellence of this piece of hardware is worth more to me than an i7. The Unibody models, in particular, are EASY to work on, very sturdy and very nice machines. Are they the fastest? No. Does that matter? No. People don't buy BMW for the fastest car on the road.

I get nothing but excellent service from the Apple store on top of that, and even though I'm a tech myself and repair my machines on my own most of the time, I utilize the store from time to time and they've always been very helpful.

I'm not a fanboy and I don't love Apple from top to bottom (there's a reason I own an Android rather than an iPhone) but I am tired of the morons on this forum judging computers purely by processor power.

Apple is not growing because they are "exploiting" anyone. I switched everyone in my entire family to a Mac, including my technophobe mother. Do they care about CPU speed? No. They care about the fact that their machines simply work and are simple to work on. It's nice that my parents can actually handle their own backups.

My gaming rig is a PC. Why? A PC excels at that and is the platform for that. My work machine (as a programmer) is a MacBook Pro because if I have to stare at text all day the LAST thing I want to do is subject myself to ClearType.

If you don't want to pay for what Macs offer DON'T. Vote with your pocket book. That's nice, but Apple doesn't owe you or anyone else here a damn thing. Apple's sales and profit margins imply that they know better than most of you what they're doing.

AMD is not a second rate company and Intel is only where it is through abuse of its position in the business world. I would love to see AMD's platform in many of Apple's products (the Mac Mini in particular) and I think Apple using AMD will improve the quality of AMD's products.

Why on earth do Windows shills hang out on this forum? I mean... seriously, what is that? (You know who you are. You sound like a bunch of bitter ex-girlfriends. It's pathetic.)

joshh2o said:

I think that this is very unlikely because Apple has been using only Intel processors and it has even taken certain steps to make sure that Mac OS X won't run on other processors.

Click to expand...

that is just the apple hardware lock in code all they need to add some divers and remove the intel only checks.

i dont think its a good idea unless AMD is making something hardware specific for a specific model. Apple has an integrated approach to computing and that makes users feel safe, I don't want budget Apples, sorry.

rowensiv said:

AMD is so bad in notebooks that I refuse to buy them. If they switch to AMD, I'm back to the PCs!

Click to expand...

I cannot agree any further. TDW, and performance is actually not as good from their Turion lineup vs C2D, let alone the newer Core_i3/5/7 lineup.

AMD's projected cpu's will not ship until late 2010 into early 2011. Thier combination with nVidia chips is not as efficient and have always had heat issues. Using ATi 3200 on my previous laptop, HP 6735B - thank you HP for having screwing up your warranty policy (if it wasn't for that I wouldn't have had a MB or Mac Mini today). That 3200 wasn't all that great either.

I think Apple will incorporate AMD chips into their XServe lineup as their more powerful than Intel's offerings currently and are just as power efficient.

we'll see.

phoenix78 said:

0% difference in performance is a big deal! Apple will then forever be associated with underperforming machines, even if it is cheaper. This is a bad thing!

Click to expand...

In the desktop market, Apple is associated with underperforming machines that are more expensive. It's already a bad thing!

Oh how I hope not.... Everyone stock up on intel macs just in case this does happen.

pvmacguy said:

Oh how I hope not.... Everyone stock up on intel macs just in case this does happen.

Click to expand...

Well, since future AMD cpus will be faster than current Intel cpus, it will be kind of silly to stick to the older mac just because of the CPU brand. Don't you think?

It happened with PowerPC can't see why it would be different with Intel.

meh, i'd just assume hire some great chip designers and add the complete apple touch to their computers

That or work with amd and intel at same time and offer BTO options for us
my main problem with apple is how you get basic bto options most the time like ram and HD size and every now and again an expensive chip upgrade that usually is proved to be a worthless upgrade off mid range chip historically.