Apple Seriously Considered Switching to AMD in 2011 MacBook Air

[zeromeus]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an Intel processor and cause the computer to crash. I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an AMD processor keep chugging along.

Remove the fan or heatsink from an AMD processor and say good bye to your $10 CPU!

Intel processors have built-in sensors that would shut the system down and prevent the CPU from frying itself.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by macguy360

I can't imagine Apple would do anything so stupid as to switch to AMD to power the macbook air's. AMD does not have the fabrication technology to produce anything in the 22nm range. They just came out with the 32nm processors in mid/late 2011. When it comes to the macbook air, the key thing is going to be heat production and performance, both of which will be most successful with intel who has already been producing the combination cpu/gpu and will now be scaling down the process to 22nm to allow for an even thinner macbook air.

AMD is about 18 months behind Intel in process nodes. 28nm APUs (Deccan platform) were sacrificed for either HD 7000 wafers or due to the management mixup from last year.



AMD is going to keep pushing as many 40nm bulk and 32nm SOI lines until everything moves to 28nm. After that we have a good chance of getting a heterogenous platform where operations are carried out based on context instead of CPU or GPU ones being split off.

[seek3r]

Originally Posted by DESNOS

AMD's CPUs are horrible... I thought Apple cared about power usage. Intel has done quite a bit of work on that, plus, AMD's implementation of Turboboost is pretty bad...

AMD's fusion chips kick the ass of equivalent intel chips in general usage 'cause while the cpu is a bit inferior the on-die ATI-derived graphics are orders of magnitude better than Intel's integrated crap.

I don't want AMD procs in my workstation or clusters right now (until they solve the problems with bulldozer's threading implementation, if they do that their next iteration of desktop/workstation chips ought to be pretty awesome), but fusion APUs in a macbook air? Hell yeah!

[Durendal]

What's their source? That blathering buttwad Charlie Demerjian over at Semiaccurate? This is baloney for one simple reason: AMD didn't have any Fusion parts suitable for the MBA.

The E-series? Not a chance in hell. It's slower than a Core 2 Duo, and we're talking old and low-end Core 2 Duo. The A-series? Nope. They have a minimum TDP of 35w, twice that of the i5/i7 ULV CPUs used in the current Air. Dual core A-series CPUs were out because they'd get crushed by an i5, no questions asked. A little more graphical horsepower wouldn't make up for that. This leaves quads, which are out because the best 35w part is a 1.5ghz CPU. If AMD were to get that within 17w, it would certainly mean chopping the clocks down further. They'd manage 1.2ghz at the very best. Again, not worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple looked at Llano and maybe even made a few prototypes. That doesn't mean they were anywhere close to making a Llano Air an actual product.

[ThisIsNotMe]

Originally Posted by jvpython

Not AMD please!

Who gives a **** what processor(s) Apple uses in its products as long as they deliver performance increases over previous models and preserve the user experience.

If Apple could put a Pentium 2 in a MacBook Air and was (somehow) able to deliver comparable or better performance, it wouldn't stop me from buying a new MacBook Air.

I really don't get why people get so hung up on 'specs' and don't focus on usability.

Apple isn't going to release a notebook that has a processor that doesn't work to its standards.

[wikus]

Originally Posted by jvpython

Not AMD please!

Reading all these negative comments about AMD is hilarious. Its kind of like reading the negative comments from apple fanboys in regards to flash or android or windows or samsung or google.. or basically anything non-apple.

If it doesnt have an apple logo or isnt apple endorsed, it must suck.

[Durendal]

Originally Posted by seek3r

AMD's fusion chips kick the ass of equivalent intel chips in general usage 'cause while the cpu is a bit inferior the on-die ATI-derived graphics are orders of magnitude better than Intel's integrated crap.

"General usage" makes little use of the GPU. This is utter crap. A dual core SB i7 and a dual core Llano at the same clocks = the Llano gets eaten alive by the i7.

[macguy360]

Originally Posted by Eidorian

AMD is about 18 months behind Intel in process nodes. 28nm APUs were sacrificed for either HD 7900 wafers or due to the management mixup from last year.



AMD is going to keep pushing as many 40nm bulk and 32nm SOI lines until everything moves to 28nm. After that we have a good chance of getting a heterogenous platform where operations are carried out based on context instead of CPU or GPU ones being split off.

18 months is a lifetime in the computer industry. There is no way Apple would choose to go with a company who is that far behind.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by seek3r

AMD's fusion chips kick the ass of equivalent intel chips in general usage 'cause while the cpu is a bit inferior the on-die ATI-derived graphics are orders of magnitude better than Intel's integrated crap.

You are looking at having Brazos face off against the Atom core that has been unchanged since launch in 2008. Atom has progressed with lower prices for lower power points on 32nm but not much else. Not to mention you have to endure Atom's terrible IGP.

Llano does have the fGPU advantage but not much else. Though it is noted to be rather efficient on the mobile front. AMD is still pushing their stock voltages much too high for my tastes.

[dylin]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an Intel processor and cause the computer to crash. I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an AMD processor keep chugging along.

I actually saw different.

[LachlanH]

Back in the early 2000's AMD would have been an excellent choice. Intel CPU's used to run crazy hot and yet somehow managed to deliver less performance that AMD CPU's running at 2/3 the clock speed.

This has all changed in the last 4 years or so.

As someone who loved AMD CPU's from about 2000-2008, I would never choose one today over Intel's Sandy Bridge line of CPU's.

There is just no escaping that fact that Intel is currently producing the superior processors at the moment, and while they continue to do so, AMD is a poor choice in my opinion.

Graphics wise yes it does muddy up the issue somewhat, but we are talking about Macbook Air's here, is graphics performance even worth discussing?

[smulji]

Originally Posted by wikus

The macbook airs suck for any kind of serious work anyway. Power users running intense photoshop documents or anything of the likes arent going to be running out to buy a macbook air.

The MBA is really geared for basic use like sending photos of your cat to grandma or typing a document in MS Word for your university paper. And in that regards, the AMD cpus are more than capable.

I'll wager that Apple creates their own ARM-based custom processor for the MBA before they start using AMD processors. It's either Intel or ARM. AMD doesn't cut it from a performance (compared to Intel) or power efficiency (compared to ARM) standpoint.

[macguy360]

Originally Posted by LachlanH

Back in the early 2000's AMD would have been an excellent choice. Intel CPU's used to run crazy hot and yet somehow managed to deliver less performance that AMD CPU's running at 2/3 the clock speed.

This has all changed in the last 4 years or so.

As someone who loved AMD CPU's from about 2000-2008, I would never choose one today over Intel's Sandy Bridge line of CPU's.

There is just no escaping that fact that Intel is currently producing the superior processors at the moment, and while they continue to do so, AMD is a poor choice in my opinion.

Graphics wise yes it does muddy up the issue somewhat, but we are talking about Macbook Air's here, is graphics performance even worth discussing?

If graphics performance is even a concern, who cares its on a 22nm die and can be overclocked to hell and back.

[zeromeus]

Originally Posted by dylin

I actually saw different.

He's actually right. The AMD processor doesn't have heat sensor, so it'll keep chugging along for a few seconds before it burns. Intel processors have heat sensors that will shut the system down before any damage could be done by overheating.

So if Apple ever put an AMD processor into their product, I'll buy the last generation of product that has ARM or Intel. Apple will receive nothing from me if they decide to cheap out with AMD.

If Apple decides to make their own processors based on ARM, I'll still support them even if it's underpowered. I'd rather have an underpowered computer than one that heats up like crazy and burns itself out. Although if Apple decides to use their MBA as a multi-use tool such as to cook your eggs and pancakes for breakfast, an AMD processor would definitely be suitable for that.

[DESNOS]

Originally Posted by macguy360

18 months is a lifetime in the computer industry. There is no way Apple would choose to go with a company who is that far behind.

Normally that would be the case, however if AMD is willing to give Apple more control over what goes into the CPU, it's possible it could work out for them. Mac OS X-specific optimizations in other words. Their CPUs are still crap, but it might work out anyway.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by Durendal

What's their source? That blathering buttwad Charlie Demerjian over at Semiaccurate? This is baloney for one simple reason: AMD didn't have any Fusion parts suitable for the MBA.

The E-series? Not a chance in hell. It's slower than a Core 2 Duo, and we're talking old and low-end Core 2 Duo. The A-series? Nope. They have a minimum TDP of 35w, twice that of the i5/i7 ULV CPUs used in the current Air. Dual core A-series CPUs were out because they'd get crushed by an i5, no questions asked. A little more graphical horsepower wouldn't make up for that. This leaves quads, which are out because the best 35w part is a 1.5ghz CPU. If AMD were to get that within 17w, it would certainly mean chopping the clocks down further. They'd manage 1.2ghz at the very best. Again, not worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple looked at Llano and maybe even made a few prototypes. That doesn't mean they were anywhere close to making a Llano Air an actual product.

Trinity is aiming for 17W 2 module/4 core processors. I guess the extra module online is to make up for the lack of raw clock speed. I find very little documentation that Trinity ULV will be 1M/2C. They are pushing as much as possible to get that full die out there.

There is also 25W LV Trinty in their A10 category.

All this is from financial day slides earlier this month. Page 34 being the most interesting.

Originally Posted by DESNOS

Normally that would be the case, however if AMD is willing to give Apple more control over what goes into the CPU, it's possible it could work out for them. Mac OS X-specific optimizations in other words. Their CPUs are still crap, but it might work out anyway.

AMD is also offering the chance of client specific IP space on die.

[carmenodie]

Originally Posted by wikus

The macbook airs suck for any kind of serious work anyway. Power users running intense photoshop documents or anything of the likes arent going to be running out to buy a macbook air.

The MBA is really geared for basic use like sending photos of your cat to grandma or typing a document in MS Word for your university paper. And in that regards, the AMD cpus are more than capable.

Thanks for stating what we already knew but you did it with a dig!
You sir need are in need of troll counseling!

----------

How far do you think AMD can go considering they are using Intel's x86 architecture? Intel has drawn the line in the sand concerning AMD and NVIDIA. They can only go so far in the market place as long as they are using Intel sh**!
And I'm sure Apple is well away of this.

[wikus]

Originally Posted by macguy360

If graphics performance is even a concern, who cares its on a 22nm die and can be overclocked to hell and back.

I'd agree, but there are several problems:

1) Mac users are generally noobs without a clue on how to overclock, swap hard drives, flash roms, etc. Development for such fine-tuning computer savvy people would be limited on the mac side.
2) GPU Drivers for OS X? I've never seen a single overclocking utility for any graphics card on a mac.
3) Overclocking still works best in Windows.
4) Anyone actually buying a mac to play games or do 3D work in OS X is crazy. Windows runs OS X into the pavement in this area, especially in gaming.
5) Graphics cards have always sucked hard on every macintosh computer and any 3rd party upgrade for the Mac (in this case, the mac pro, because apple doesnt believe in choice for iMac users) has always been expensive and to make matters worse, the offerings have usually been obsolete last generation.

Thats not to say I wouldnt like to see better gpu support for macs. If I could play Half Life 2 ep. 2, portal or other games at 1920 x 1200, 4X FSAA and maximum settings getting a constant (and minimum) 60fps, I'd be real happy.

But the reality is this: gaming and graphics cards are a complete pathetic JOKE in OS X. And anyone who disagrees is in denial.

[tom vilsack]

market cap

apple 478 billion
amd 5 billion

apple cash on hand 100 billion

why not just buy amd and be done?

[afin]

I'm worried about AMD not doing so well these days, especially with their market failure FX line. Intel needs a real competitor in order to stay fit. Capitalism and all that.

[Macman45]

Originally Posted by Inakto

if it works better fine by me. AMD is underrated.

Back a ways, I used to build PC's with AMD CPU's....they were robust, and an over clockers dream....I would replace my MBP or my MBA with an AMD based chip without any concerns at all.

[wikus]

Originally Posted by tom vilsack

market cap

apple 478 billion
amd 5 billion

apple cash on hand 100 billion

why not just buy amd and be done?

Why? So that Apple can build on its monopoly?

And am I the only thats getting really tired of this 'why doesnt Apple just buy 'company X' ??'

As if every company out there is for sale and Apple should just become the next Microsoft... not like it hasnt already.

[ekwipt]

AMD Apple TV would rock if they do it properly, Intel/Nvidia can't compete cost/performance, although performance is ultimately better on Intel/Nvidia IMO of course

[commander.data]

Probably for the best that the Llano MacBook Air didn't make it. Even with OpenCL, with I/O taken care of with SSDs, the biggest contributor to user performance experience for most tasks is CPU speed and Llano can't compare to Sandy Bridge on the CPU side. And the HD 3000 is doing surprising well with even the latest AAA Mac games supporting it including RAGE, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Bioshock 2. Some GPU performance is left on the table compared to Llano, but game/driver compatibility problems, which were traditionally Intel's weak point, seem to have been solved. Llano couldn't match LV Sandy Bridge's 17W TDP either. For a "Plan B", the Sandy Bridge MacBook Air turned out surprisingly well.

[TMar]

Forbes reports that the company's Llano family of Fusion combination CPU-GPU systems was under consideration by Apple to be used as the brains behind the MacBook Air for its 2011 revision.

OK, let me be the first to report that Apple considers every major chip maker when looking at product revisions (you can quote me on that if you want to rerun the story). This is just common sense that Apple will prototype with different suppliers, they have no brand loyalty when it comes to components. They don't even offer any proof, how is common sense reportable media?