You can't judge picture quality between different resolutions on an LCD display. They only have one resolution at which the graphics are going to be crisp and precise.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Had Late Stage Prototypes of an AMD Fusion Based MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can't judge picture quality between different resolutions on an LCD display. They only have one resolution at which the graphics are going to be crisp and precise.
Winter Charm
macrumors 6502a
But there is one. It's called the mac mini. and it has great specs:
http://www.apple.com/macmini
The new minis are real screamers. 🙂
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
I've never heard of any "Thunderbolt integration" into an Intel CPU?! 😕
They only "special" CPU feature that I'm aware of is memory protection. Though FireWire ports have existed for years without previous CPUs...
Also, it is already proven that Thunderbolt / Mini-DisplayPort works in conjunction with AMD GPUs.
I don't buy the oft-mentioned "Thunderbolt" arguments in this thread. AFAIK it's just an extension of the PCIe bus, implemented in a dedicated controller chip, which should be possible to include in an AMD-powered notebook. Sure, Intel could somehow contractually prohibit Apple from including them in non-Intel Computers but I seriously Apple would have accepted such terms.
The current Macbook Air graphics performance needs to improve.
Sometimes, it feels it is weaker than the previous generation Macbook Air in terms of graphic performance.
Sometimes, it feels it is weaker than the previous generation Macbook Air in terms of graphic performance.
Actually, AMD isn't any number of years behind, because they don't have any fabs (i.e., don't have manufactig processes).
GlobalFoundries will be at 28nm in 2012 (roadmap http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21568 ). That isn't too far from 22nm (which Ivy Bridge is going to be at next year also.). However, it does give Intel a higher transitor budget to squeeze higher performance out of. Additionally, AMD has allocated a higher percentage of the budget GPUs so the x86 transistor gap is even higher.
Direct comparisons are a bit off because they aren't shrinking to the same size targets.
GF 40nm -> 32 nm -> 28 nm -> 20 nm
Intel 45nm -> 32 nm -> 22 nm -> 14 nm
In part, because GF has to make chips for many folks and not just one customer. That has upsides and downsides. One downside is that Apple can't show up at the last minute and say "Oh by the way, I'd like 4 million Zacates over the next 6 months". The lead time is long and they probably have to pre-pay some amount to block out the time.
Although the Zacates were being made by TSMC (at 40nm and future 28nm ). Although yield/process problems at TSMC is another reason can show up out of the blue and ask for an addition 4 million also.
robeddie
Suspended
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting really really tired of seeing that photo of Jobs, as contained in your avatar.
----------
there's no reason they couln't offer an iMac with top end graphics. But to be sure, in the past couple of years, they have given us FAR better graphics in the iMacs then there used to be.
It wasn't long ago the low end iMacs had a nvideo 9400 gpu in them. Now even the base models have the 6750 in them - which is like, 3 times the performance of the 9400.
I don't need every Windows app ported to ARM. However, I've use iOS, Mango, and now I have a Kindle Fire, and what I want is a res-doubled Mango tablet instead of my Fire. I know WP tablets aren't due until middle/ late next year, but having tried them all, WP7.5 is my choice of mobile OS.
This is typical nonsense from charlie. Intel ULV have fantastic performance and is far from under performing. Anyway this news is absolute rubbish because there is no ULV Llano APU. So how on earth can Apple consider an APU with 35W TDP. Even at 35W CPU operates at low speeds(< 2ghz). So even if AMD could have manufactured a custom APU for apple(which is difficult as they dont own any fabs), they would have signficantly reduced CPU/GPU performance to hit TDP required for MBA.
Mad-B-One
macrumors 6502a
I like AMD...
All these discussions about if the i7 or AMDs are faster depends on what you test. Intel uses quadcores with hyperthreating, AMD uses hexacore in Phenom IIs and octacores in their new line. They are not really fully supported by software, yet, though I could imagine that if they are, a true 8-core system is faster than a 8-hyperthreat system. Also, the automated overlocking of every second core is a neat idea. In the end, it doesn't matter because the bottleneck of desktop systems in a Windows world is the GPU in 9/10 cases when it comes to computing power. Luckily, if you know how to do it, you can just upgrade when you have a PC.
All these discussions about if the i7 or AMDs are faster depends on what you test. Intel uses quadcores with hyperthreating, AMD uses hexacore in Phenom IIs and octacores in their new line. They are not really fully supported by software, yet, though I could imagine that if they are, a true 8-core system is faster than a 8-hyperthreat system. Also, the automated overlocking of every second core is a neat idea. In the end, it doesn't matter because the bottleneck of desktop systems in a Windows world is the GPU in 9/10 cases when it comes to computing power. Luckily, if you know how to do it, you can just upgrade when you have a PC.
Last edited:
bketchum
macrumors regular
Just a thought...
The PowerPC had its moments on the Mac (and still does with IBM's servers), but after what Apple went through early this century with flagging processor performance on that platform, I suspect they won't want to get caught like that again. I imagine they are testing multiple platforms in their labs so they can move one way or another quickly if they have to. Good to keep your options open. Who knows, AMD may come up with some crazy new idea that will obsolete Intel.
I also think it's a good idea to let Intel know that they are not the only processor company around. Keep them honest. Leverage fair prices from Intel with the knowledge that Apple can go to another company for processor needs.
One thing that hampered Apple previously was that software developers couldn't justify the resources needed to develop their apps for the PowerPC platform. Might that occur again if Apple went with ARM chips in their Mac OS machines?
The PowerPC had its moments on the Mac (and still does with IBM's servers), but after what Apple went through early this century with flagging processor performance on that platform, I suspect they won't want to get caught like that again. I imagine they are testing multiple platforms in their labs so they can move one way or another quickly if they have to. Good to keep your options open. Who knows, AMD may come up with some crazy new idea that will obsolete Intel.
I also think it's a good idea to let Intel know that they are not the only processor company around. Keep them honest. Leverage fair prices from Intel with the knowledge that Apple can go to another company for processor needs.
One thing that hampered Apple previously was that software developers couldn't justify the resources needed to develop their apps for the PowerPC platform. Might that occur again if Apple went with ARM chips in their Mac OS machines?
Eh??? The display port signals are sent from the GPU ( or a switch connected to multiple GPUs outputs so that can toggle between them) to pins on the TB controller. The TB controller then sends the signals out over the TB channel. What exactly does the CPU have to do with that process? It isn't even involved any more than it is when the GPU outputs are connected to a VGA , DVI , or classic DisplayPort connector.
To the CPU the TB controller looks like a PCI-e switch. That's about it. Even on the TB technology website:
"... Thunderbolt technology leverages the native PCI Express and DisplayPort device drivers available in many operating systems today. This native software support means no extra software development is required to use a Thunderbolt technology-enabled product ... "
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/tech/how-it-works
[if need to see figure 4.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...thunderbolt/thunderbolt-technology-brief.html ]
The only thing Intel has been adding to the CPU Package is GPUs. Yes, the DisplayPort output of that GPU inside the package needs to be connected to the TB controller for the signal to be delivered outside the box. But that is true of any GPU: including AMD's. There are several Macs where AMD GPUs are hooked to TB and it works just fine.
AMD doesn't need access. Buying the chip gives you access.
It is Apple's job to design (or outsource to a contractor) the design of their system.
Largely immaterial once you are holding a physical implementation in your hand.
Open would be better in that there would be multiple implementers and there is remote threat that intel would stop selling discrete TB controllers. The latter isn't too likely because peripherals need TB controllers and
That Intel is inserting a chip into the GPU output circuitry that can only be bought from them. And it does mess up the PCI-e video card market. However, the latter is on a down trend anyway.
However, AMD doesn't have to do the board design.
That is more virtualization than protection (although isolation provide protective benefits). Also comical because AMD implemented this before Intel did. [ "In February, AMD published an I/O virtualization specification that outlines a design for a device called an IOMMU (I/O Memory Management Unit). Implementations of this design will be fielded as part of support chipsets, expected in 2007. .. " http://developer.amd.com/documentation/articles/pages/892006101.aspx ]
If it were to run ARM it wouldn't be running OS X. It would have to run iOS. Expecting OS X developers to support two architectures just isn't realistic.
I just wish Intel would allow Nvidia to make chipsets.
Nvidia's integrated graphics + Intel's latest CPU architecture in a MacBook Air would be awesome..
Nvidia's integrated graphics + Intel's latest CPU architecture in a MacBook Air would be awesome..
Apple switching to ARM is laughable. Apple may use their A4/A5/A6/A7,etc for the iPhone, iPad and AppleTV product, but they do so because of the cost/power tradeoff.
For Apple to switch all their machines to ARM, would require doing FatBinaries again, which is easier to do on the Mac than it is on Windows. Microsoft is only doing this for their Phone/Tablet target. No doubt some hardware manufacturers may try to put the desktop Windows on ARM, but it won't sell. Unless end users can run their WindowsXP era software on it, unchanged, it's a dead option.
ARM will be behind the performance curve from anything Intel offers. So the only possibility of switches to ARM are with the MacBook Air, which the iPad already serves this purpose. Arguably the MacBook Air and the iPad canibalize each other, it just depends on which you need more, your native MacOS apps or battery life.
AMD probably couldn't build a chip in volume at a power envelope less than the Intel option. Forget about any other reason. Intel's onboard video has been nothing but a joke (see notebookcheck)
Intel GMA5700MHD (i3/i5/i7) roughly equal in performance to the Radeon HD6250 and Geforce G102. Very little is playable except on lowest settings. Mind you these parts aren't marketed at playing recent games, but rather the social networking games and for HD video scaling on external monitors.
Non-believer
I don't believe any stories about possible Apple product prototypes unless they have been left in a bar near Apple. Or are offered for sale on eBay. When a kid who got fired from the GeekSquad at Best Buy tears apart a MacBook Air for Gizmodo and finds an AMD processor, then you can believe the stories.
😛
I don't believe any stories about possible Apple product prototypes unless they have been left in a bar near Apple. Or are offered for sale on eBay. When a kid who got fired from the GeekSquad at Best Buy tears apart a MacBook Air for Gizmodo and finds an AMD processor, then you can believe the stories.
😛
If you look at history, Apple doesn't like to be beholden to any single company--they always try to have options for their components--including processors. Apple has already used both nVidia and ATI graphics processors, just as an example. To at least study and consider AMD is only logical for them.
However, I personally believe they intend to go much farther than using AMD, Intel or even ARM processors. I think they're trying to develop their own in-house processor that offers everything they need from other platforms while not relying on any one as an exclusive supplier. Intel has already told Apple that they will only burn chips based on Intel designs, so Intel has almost eliminated itself from the running should Apple succeed in their plans.
Honestly, such a change wouldn't bother me one bit, so long as I can get versions of my existing software to work--as I have almost throughout Apple's history except for my change from Apple II to Mac Plus. Apple has honestly been far better at seamless translations over time compared to Windows, where a simple one-level OS upgrade could kill apps you've used reliably for years.
Now, before you anti-Apple zealots jump on my case, try to remember how many times you've had to use a 'compatibility mode' to play a game you may have purchased only months previously. Now, after having played World of Warcraft for almost 5 years, I have never had to revert to a previous OS or use any kind of compatibility mode on my 23" aluminum iMac. In fact, with Lion my frame rates have even gone up where an un-changed Windows box would probably see lower frame rates than original.
To me, far more important is the reliability of the machine and its components than cutting-edge speed and gimmicks. I went that way when I used to build my own PCs and quite honestly my Mac has more than paid for itself in the fact that I would now be working on my third PC upgrade in the amount of time I've owned this one Mac.
----------
I choose to disagree with you, Scruffy; AMD has frequently been at least as good if not better than Intel over the years. I've used AMD processors as well as Intel's and most of the time find them very equivalent. Yes, I still occasionally build a PC, though not for my own use any more. My customers have never noticed the difference and there is no difference in the number of service calls I have to make to my clients between AMD or Intel.
On the other hand, since I've started migrating them to Apple hardware even to just run Windows, my number of service calls has dropped by half to two-thirds with those clients.
I still remember the days when AMD actually was much better than Intel. The 486DX/40 was far beyond anything Intel had to offer at the time.
I also remember my 286/20, pretty sure it was an AMD CPU too.
So yes, Intel may be better than AMD today, but that doesn't mean they'll always be ahead. As a more modern current proof, let's not forget that x64 was developed by AMD but is also used inside Intel's own CPUs.
As I recall, AMD was allowed to manufacture x86 CPUs at that point, and market them as such. The lack of ability to trademark a number is why the Pentium was called Pentium instead of 586.
Actually, come to think of it, I think AMD was licensed to manufacture exact copies of Intel CPUs at that point, and that license has underlied its entire existence. I'd have to do some digging to check if I'm correct on these, but that's what I recall.