I don't understand why Apple has boxed themselves in with the either/or scenario. There is no problem offering computers with both AMD and Intel (Most other manufactures do this) and they are both x86 and OS X will run fine on either.
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
I don't understand why Apple has boxed themselves in with the either/or scenario. There is no problem offering computers with both AMD and Intel (Most other manufactures do this) and they are both x86 and OS X will run fine on either.
What a shame. I would love to see better diversity and competition in the CPU market. AMD has worthy products. Hopefully they can manage Apple's requirements the next time around.
Intel Processors are superior to AMD in processing power. While integrated gpu may not be as good, there is not a whole lot of mac games that need a powerful gpu.
I think an ARM and i0S powered apple book air is the next step.
----------
but still x86 is outdated cpu technology that manged linger from the 70's. Intel's has Microsoft to thank for that. ARM is the future.
bruinsrme
macrumors 604
Somewhat a ironic view that ARM will take over since it is worse in performance than AMD. ARM isn't necessarily going to be the best solution in the MacBook Air ( and up) space. By the time ARM has a serious standard 64-bit implementation Intel will be at the 22 nm (or perhaps 18nm ) implementations.
Second it is highly dubious to split the Mac line up over two architectures. It is extremely unilikely ARM is going to offer decent iMac class performance. Once ARM is operating in Intel's "home ground" TDP envelope values, the ARM architecture probably isn't going to look so good. With AMD and Intel competing in this ULV space with each other it is going to be hard for ARM to squeeze its way into the space. If performance is a top 3 criteria it is going to be tough for them to get design wins.
They didn't. They sold off the manufacturing portions of the company to an investment group. Constructing and equipping new mordern fabs cost many of billions dollars each. The price tag is getting too big for a single company to do that for just itself for its own line of chips. Intel only manages to pull it off because have the large majority of the x86 market locked up to pay for it.
That new, spun out, company is GlobalFoundaries (GF). It still makes most of the AMD processors. However, for the Bobcat ( Zacate ) which competes against Atom and high end ARM processors were designed so that could be make at a non GF facility on a bulk process (so can also use TSMC). [ Conceptually someone could contract a custom version if pay AMD and TSMC enough money. For example a Bobcat with perhaps slightly higher clocks for better performance with a slightly higher TDP envelope. ]
What would make more sense than this LLano rumor would be a 2012 replacements for Zacate: Krishna and Witchita .
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Apple picking Intel is one of reason why I got one - I really hope this does not happen - it bad enough video chip in new ones are AMD.
It had to believe all the Anti-Apple Anti-Intel hype out there anyway. There even silly rumors of ARM based MacBook AIR.
Of course if Apple goes AMD - don't expect the thunderbolt port in the versions.
----------
ARM in MacBook Air - would be a total joke. This is Anti Intel / Apple crowd trying to push something that will never be.
To me SemiAccurate site looks very Anti Intel in nature and is wrong on a lot of predications - this story has actually been change to
"Apple MacBook Air with AMD processor dead"
Also it mentions the ARM cpu and if check the site - it publish an Article back in May and it was later proven wrong.
I am curious if there was a deal in works and maybe this is why AMD laid employees off.
"Apple MacBook Air with AMD processor dead"
Also it mentions the ARM cpu and if check the site - it publish an Article back in May and it was later proven wrong.
I am curious if there was a deal in works and maybe this is why AMD laid employees off.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about.
AMD64 was the original specification for the 64-bit; both AMD and Intel were working towards a 64-bit architecture. AMD beat Intel to it, and Intel based EM64T (Intel 64) on AMD64. So yes, without AMD64, EM64T would not exist. However, EM64T is very different from AMD64, and it is EM64T that powers all Intel 64-bit computers. Because you know, most computers use Intel processors, not AMD.
Windows and Ubuntu 64-bit are identified as AMD64 because while EM64T is unique from AMD64, their core foundation is identical and are cross-compatible to a degree. This does not mean Intel uses AMD64; far from it! They did not license to use AMD64, nor is EM64T a direct, complete copy of AMD64. EM64T is a variant of a bigger specification, like how Linux distros are variants of OSes using the universal Linux kernel.
Since EM64T is powering my quad-core MacBook Pro, it obviously has not flopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
You're young aren't you.. The word "superior" is mentioned a lot these days, usually by young people who just want to show they know something.
x86 is not "outdated cpu technology".. it's outdated when something replaces it, and nothing has replaced the architecture that powers 90%+ of the worlds consumer PCs. We've just (finally) got some decent competition.
Let Apple do what Apple does best
If I remember correctly, back before Apple switched to Intel, one of the common criticisms a lot of people had about the Mac was that it wasn't as powerful as a PC. Apple put a lot of energy into trying to demonstrate that their computers were just as powerful as Intel-based PCs (I remember a MacWorld speech where Jon Rubinstein talked about the Mhz myth...).
When Apple switched to Intel, it took that issue off the table. Apple could then focus on what differentiates them from other PC makers (software, an integrated experience, ease of use, design) and not have to convince other people that their machines were just as fast.
If they switched to AMD or an ARM-based design, they would then again have to deal with trying to convince customers that they don't have 2nd-rate hardware. It seems like an unwanted distraction and waste of time and money. There would have to be strong compelling reasons for Apple to switch (as there was when they left PowerPC).
----------
Good point. The competition between Intel and AMD has been for the most part about better performance and graphics. ARM-based designs bring a whole new aspect to this competition: lower power. While ARM is working to make cores that have better performance while maintaining lower power, Intel and AMD will work to maintain performance and lower power consumption. The competition is about who will get to the sweet spot first. I think we as customers will benefit from this for all types of products (phones, tablets, laptops, servers).
If I remember correctly, back before Apple switched to Intel, one of the common criticisms a lot of people had about the Mac was that it wasn't as powerful as a PC. Apple put a lot of energy into trying to demonstrate that their computers were just as powerful as Intel-based PCs (I remember a MacWorld speech where Jon Rubinstein talked about the Mhz myth...).
When Apple switched to Intel, it took that issue off the table. Apple could then focus on what differentiates them from other PC makers (software, an integrated experience, ease of use, design) and not have to convince other people that their machines were just as fast.
If they switched to AMD or an ARM-based design, they would then again have to deal with trying to convince customers that they don't have 2nd-rate hardware. It seems like an unwanted distraction and waste of time and money. There would have to be strong compelling reasons for Apple to switch (as there was when they left PowerPC).
----------
Good point. The competition between Intel and AMD has been for the most part about better performance and graphics. ARM-based designs bring a whole new aspect to this competition: lower power. While ARM is working to make cores that have better performance while maintaining lower power, Intel and AMD will work to maintain performance and lower power consumption. The competition is about who will get to the sweet spot first. I think we as customers will benefit from this for all types of products (phones, tablets, laptops, servers).
adder7712
macrumors 68000
Intel is never good at graphics.
AMD has the edge in graphics as they'd gobbled up ATI.
Well, I would be very happy if they changed to AMD 😛
I currently have the A6 3400M a quad core at 1.4Ghz, turbo to 2.3Ghz.
With dual graphics the Readon HD 6720G2
and I'm very happy with it.
I'm using it in a 17.3" laptop 1600x900 and it runs very smooth.
And the best thing about it, you can easily over clock it,
so that it's a 2.3Ghz quad and boosted to 2.9Ghz quad without problems 😛.
If you put that in a 13", nice...
I currently have the A6 3400M a quad core at 1.4Ghz, turbo to 2.3Ghz.
With dual graphics the Readon HD 6720G2
and I'm very happy with it.
I'm using it in a 17.3" laptop 1600x900 and it runs very smooth.
And the best thing about it, you can easily over clock it,
so that it's a 2.3Ghz quad and boosted to 2.9Ghz quad without problems 😛.
If you put that in a 13", nice...
MacSince1990
macrumors 65816
Not really. Apple's constantly touting new features to sell a few more macs, and then abandoning them completely or at least having them fade into the background. PERCH, ADC, (Now FireWire..), 66 MHz PCI slots, AGP Pro...
----------
You seem to have a very poor grasp on the entire situation. And for the record, AMD may lose out in FP power, but in terms of integer performance it's actually often superior, at least with Bulldozer.
And um... tons of Mac games require a powerful GPU. You're clueless.
Explain to me, please, how the x86 is "outdated CPU technology.. from the 70's." Be specific, talking about the ISA as a whole, and examining the current i7 Pipeline stages, SIMD/FPU/ALU integration scheme, and multiprocessing setup.
Oh, I'm sorry, you can't? Then don't offer baseless opinions. ARM is garbage for processing-intensive applications. They're still weaker clock for clock than the G5 chip introduced almost 9 years ago. Actually, they're not really any faster clock-for-clock than G4s. Which were based entirely on G3s of 14 years ago, minus the FPU which was borrowed from the 604e, of 16 years ago. A chip which was based on the 603, which was based on the 601, introduced in 1994.
You realize there were ARM processors in Newtons, right? And GameBoys? And I don't mean GBA, either, I'm talking the original 1980's gameboy.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
To my knowledge, Apple was unable to fit a GPU in the 13" because of space and heat constraints, and the 15" and 17" had a massive GPU boost (at least for the low-end). Not only that, a single package of the embedded IGP and CPU is more economical than two separate chips, so instead of going with Nvidia's IGP, Apple opted for the HD 3000.
Also, the 6750M and 6770M are far from being "last gen" or weak. In fact, they are pretty powerful and are comparable to high-end Nvidia GPUs.
As for the iMac, it comes with an HD 69x0M. I mean, that's a powerful GPU (one of the best for a laptop). It's even comparable to a good desktop GPU.
I know the graphics aren't the highest on Apple's priority list, but they do care about them.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Your link says that it is you that has no idea what you are talking about. Intel's implementation of x86-64 is modeled after AMD's.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
The old nVidia IGP + Intel CPU and the current Intel CPU + Intel GPU are both 2 chip combos. You're forgetting there's more to a PCH than just the graphics processor. Sandy Bridge still requires a PCH and thus still has 2 chips.
----------
Uh ? Android is nothing like iOS. And read your own link...
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
Intel GPU and CPU are on the same die. One chip.
Nvidia GPU was on the northbridge, which is separate from the CPU in pre-SB processors and requires 2+ chips. For Sandy Bridge and beyond, the northbridge is embedded into the CPU die, which means one chip.
You have no clue either. If Intel did use AMD64 instead of develop its own, then:
1. They would have licensed the technology, which they did not
2. It would not be called "Intel 64"
3. Intel CPUs would be much more expensive due to royalties paid to AMD
The key wording here is adopting. Intel adopted AMD's implementation of x64. They did not copy it directly or license it for their own use; they adopted it. The fundamental design is more or less the same, but there are obviously enough technical differences to set Intel 64 apart from AMD 64, and necessitate different drivers for each architectures.Wikipedia said:
Plus, Android was modeled after iOS. It has since deviated very much from the original design.
Last edited:
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Are you doing this on purpose ?
2011 model :
Red + Orange chip. The CPU (and integrated GPU) and the PCH. That's the Sandy Bridge model.
2010 model :
Wow, same Red + Orange chip. The CPU (no IGP) and the PCH (containing the GPU)...
----------
Off topic. And no it hasn't.
----------
You keep using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. 😀
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northbridge_(computing))Are you doing this on purpose ?
2011 model :
Red + Orange chip. The CPU (and integrated GPU) and the PCH. That's the Sandy Bridge model.
2010 model :
Wow, same Red + Orange chip. The CPU (no IGP) and the PCH (containing the GPU)...
----------
Off topic. And no it hasn't.
You keep using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. 😀
The 320M on the Air is a special case, where it was integrated into the PCH instead of the Northbridge.
Please relearn smartphone history if you don't know that Android was based off of iOS. Moreover, if you think that was off-topic, then your understanding of metaphors are lacking.
I adopted the playing style of Joe Satriani. Is my playing style identical to Satch's? No.
Last edited:
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
And... ?
Both Sandy Bridge based Airs and the old 320M+C2D Air are 2 chip solutions. Keep denying the plain truth if you want but that's your prerogative if you like living in denial.
I don't know why you refuse to see the facts in front of you.
Uh ? Android was founded in 2003... After Andy Rubin left Danger Inc, another Smartphone OS maker he founded...
I'm seriously confused, it seems I know the smartphone history a tad better than you in this case. How can Android be based off iOS when it saw the light of day years before iOS was introduced ?
Again off-topic.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
I don't consider a MacBook Air as a proper laptop, especially the 2010 ones. They used custom chips, everything from the PCH to the CPU. Yes, the 2010 MacBook Airs did not use a regular C2D, but a scaled-down ULV version, differing from regular ULV ones. For that reason the chips found in the 2010 MacBook Airs are not valid for comparison.
Bring a picture of a 13" 2010 MacBook Pro and then we can compare properly.
Android was not much of a modern smartphone OS back in 2003, was it? Then iOS released, and the Android as we know it today came to be.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
I don't get you. I showed you 2 pictures. Both have 2 chips. 1 is a Sandy Bridge board, the other is a C2D board.
You're saying Sandy Bridge doesn't have 2 chips based on the fact that you don't think of the 2010 has a proper laptop...
Am I missing something here or are you just afraid of simply admitting you were wrong in this instance.
The Android of 2008 is the same Android that was bought by Google in 2005 and was started by Andy Rubin in 2003 based on the same Hiptop experience he gained at his other startup Danger Inc which he founded in 1999.
I really don't understand what you mean and again, you're quite off topic.