One recurrent rumor appears to have resurfaced... The Register reports that there was some suggestion from one AMD official that Apple and AMD may have been talking. But even the Register suggests not reading too much into it:
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 and AMD (again)?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Apple and AMD (again)?
Oh boy, oh boy, here we go again with AMD...
You might also want to check out the news about IBM buying Opteron chips from AMD.
>
Oh boy, oh boy, here we go again with AMD...
You might also want to check out the news about IBM buying Opteron chips from AMD.
>
Please, quite that stupid Apple x86 Babble
I am sick and tired of it. AMD might contribute some controller chips here and there, same as VIA and others but the CPU no way!
I personally would refuse to buy an x86 Apple machine. I left this lousy architecture and I don't want to be forced back onto it!
Ahmed
I am sick and tired of it. AMD might contribute some controller chips here and there, same as VIA and others but the CPU no way!
I personally would refuse to buy an x86 Apple machine. I left this lousy architecture and I don't want to be forced back onto it!
Ahmed
Processor? Does it matter?
Hello,
Does it matter what processor is powering the Mac?
I think not.
Also, rumors like this gives Apple some leverage when negotiating contracts for purchasing processors.
Always have a backup supplier.
So, if the deal with IBM goes south for 970 (ie, IBM wants too much for them), Apple can always switch to Opteron and keep going.
I think that was the whole reason they leaked last year that they have an x86 version of OSX.
Hello,
Does it matter what processor is powering the Mac?
I think not.
Also, rumors like this gives Apple some leverage when negotiating contracts for purchasing processors.
Always have a backup supplier.
So, if the deal with IBM goes south for 970 (ie, IBM wants too much for them), Apple can always switch to Opteron and keep going.
I think that was the whole reason they leaked last year that they have an x86 version of OSX.
NavyIntel007
macrumors 65816
Stop the insanity!!! NO AMD!!!
AMD's use more power and are much hotter than Intel processors that are much hotter than G4's (and supposedly the 970). So will the AMD fans put a cork in it for God's sake?
AMD's use more power and are much hotter than Intel processors that are much hotter than G4's (and supposedly the 970). So will the AMD fans put a cork in it for God's sake?
macktheknife
macrumors 6502a
The article actually does a pretty good job point out why Apple might be talking to AMD to keep IBM and Motorola on their heels. The article itself cautioned against reading too much into this, but as an analysis piece, it points out why 64-bit computing might be essential for Apple in the not-so distant future.
Don't Panic
AMD also fab chips and make WiFi chipsets, it might well be merely a new source of Airport hardware.
AMD also fab chips and make WiFi chipsets, it might well be merely a new source of Airport hardware.
pgwalsh
macrumors 68000
Since they both work on HyperTransport and they both are using 32/64 bit chips maybe they're just compairing notes. If you think about it, both compaines are working with IBM, HyperTrasport, and 32/64bit chips.
This is an interesting read: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html
It's old, but interesting and may give insight to why AMD run nearly as fast at PIV However, that's my own speculation.
This is an interesting read: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html
It's old, but interesting and may give insight to why AMD run nearly as fast at PIV However, that's my own speculation.
I can't see Apple switching processors for their consumer machines but I could easily see them using different processors in the XServe line. These are headless machines and are much less dependent on the CPU. They may even be working on 64bit blade servers for all we know...
Actually, AMDs Opteron 64bit chips are pretty close to the PowerPC 970 in power consumption, ~40w @ 1.8Ghz
(Intel have the hottest running award at the moment, the 3.06Ghz P4 tops 100w peak)
Intel and PowerPC
I saw a rather strange article in PC Mag concerning Apple using both Intel Itanium and PowerPC chips. Even though I thought the writer must have been out of his mind when he wrote the article, it is still interesting.
The article can be found here.
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp)
I am thinking that maybe Apple could use both AMD Opteron and IBM 970 and follow through a similar plan in the article.
Ah! This article's madness must be rubbing off on me!
I saw a rather strange article in PC Mag concerning Apple using both Intel Itanium and PowerPC chips. Even though I thought the writer must have been out of his mind when he wrote the article, it is still interesting.
The article can be found here.
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp)
I am thinking that maybe Apple could use both AMD Opteron and IBM 970 and follow through a similar plan in the article.
Ah! This article's madness must be rubbing off on me!
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
Here's my pet theory
First off, the disclaimer: this is my pet theory, i.e., a total, wild, pulled-of-out-my-*ss speculation, okay. I have no inside info or contact with people who might know this, but here is my speculation of why this AMD thing keeps coming up despite the fact that the use of the IBM 970 is almost a certainty.
Put this AMD thing into a bigger context of recent events.
We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.
Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.
Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.
And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.
So what could all this possibly point to? Apple has given us a system that can basically run software from three different operating systems: the classic Mac OS, Mas OS X (the Next OS), and Unix. They recently brought the Unix world closer with the release of X11. Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.
Now does Microsoft buying VPC make sense? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe MS Mac Business Unit caught wind of this and wants to one-up Apple somehow. Any thoughts?
AMD would be a likely partner is such a move since one could imagine the problems with Intel assisting Apple with this. If it was popular, Intel would be killing their own business. AMD, on the other hand, wouldn't, if I understand the situation correctly.
Anyway... like I said... wild speculation, but that's what all this says to me.
First off, the disclaimer: this is my pet theory, i.e., a total, wild, pulled-of-out-my-*ss speculation, okay. I have no inside info or contact with people who might know this, but here is my speculation of why this AMD thing keeps coming up despite the fact that the use of the IBM 970 is almost a certainty.
Put this AMD thing into a bigger context of recent events.
We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.
Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.
Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.
And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.
So what could all this possibly point to? Apple has given us a system that can basically run software from three different operating systems: the classic Mac OS, Mas OS X (the Next OS), and Unix. They recently brought the Unix world closer with the release of X11. Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.
Now does Microsoft buying VPC make sense? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe MS Mac Business Unit caught wind of this and wants to one-up Apple somehow. Any thoughts?
AMD would be a likely partner is such a move since one could imagine the problems with Intel assisting Apple with this. If it was popular, Intel would be killing their own business. AMD, on the other hand, wouldn't, if I understand the situation correctly.
Anyway... like I said... wild speculation, but that's what all this says to me.
pgwalsh
macrumors 68000
Re: Intel and PowerPC
I agree with you on Opteron and the 970. Question is will Apple use x86 instructions or will AMD put PPC instruction in place of the X86. AMD's processor are RISC with CISC in the front. That would be interesting.... Makes sense since both 970 and Opteron are 32/64. I'm dreaming, but that would be nice.
Interesting prediction....
I agree with you on Opteron and the 970. Question is will Apple use x86 instructions or will AMD put PPC instruction in place of the X86. AMD's processor are RISC with CISC in the front. That would be interesting.... Makes sense since both 970 and Opteron are 32/64. I'm dreaming, but that would be nice.
Awimoway
macrumors 68000
Re: Here's my pet theory
Would be nice. But if the Apple professional office suite rumors are true (and consider the one today about a budgeting app), it would seem that Apple is trying to give its customers Mac OS-based solutions, suggesting that an option to run x86 software is not in Apple's game plan.
But I realize I'm trading in nothing but rumors here.
Would be nice. But if the Apple professional office suite rumors are true (and consider the one today about a budgeting app), it would seem that Apple is trying to give its customers Mac OS-based solutions, suggesting that an option to run x86 software is not in Apple's game plan.
But I realize I'm trading in nothing but rumors here.
I don't think Apple is talking to AMD about CPUs right now. While CPUs are their most visible bussiness, AMD makes a lot of chip that Apple could use.
If by some chance Apple does use their CPUs, it probably won't be across the board in a total switch like PPC was. Apple seems as though they are trying to get into the big server and workstation market with IBM, Sun, HP, and all those companies. IBM and Sun seem to be offering or planing to offer Opeteron solutions along side their regular platforms. Apple could be doing this with Xserve, and possibly bigger servers.
If by some chance Apple does use their CPUs, it probably won't be across the board in a total switch like PPC was. Apple seems as though they are trying to get into the big server and workstation market with IBM, Sun, HP, and all those companies. IBM and Sun seem to be offering or planing to offer Opeteron solutions along side their regular platforms. Apple could be doing this with Xserve, and possibly bigger servers.
Re: Here's my pet theory
That would be the death of Apple. Developers would have no reason to write apps for the Mac, they'd just tell Mac users to use the Windows version since it would be "good enough". This is what happened to OS/2, which ran Windows 3.1 apps transparently.
That would be the death of Apple. Developers would have no reason to write apps for the Mac, they'd just tell Mac users to use the Windows version since it would be "good enough". This is what happened to OS/2, which ran Windows 3.1 apps transparently.
vollspacken
macrumors 65816
I'm sick of those apple-amd speculations!
IF, and I say IF, this should really happen, you can all call me SAUERKRAUT!!! there will be no amd-processor in a power mac 😱
vSpacken
IF, and I say IF, this should really happen, you can all call me SAUERKRAUT!!! there will be no amd-processor in a power mac 😱
vSpacken
eric_n_dfw
macrumors 68000
Rincewind42
macrumors 6502a
Uh... where did you get that? From another register article the Opteron 244 (the highest end chip) burns 89 watts at 1.8Ghz - more than twice the estimate of the 970@1.8Ghz.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30354.html
Thermal Design Power
"The Opteron is being rated at a thermal design power, or thermal tolerance, of 80 watts, according to sources. But OEMs familiar with the design say AMD is being generous and allowing quite a bit of future thermal headroom for faster Opterons.
"That's the spec," said Phil Hester, chief executive of Newisys, a Texas server startup wholly focused on the Opteron, and in which AMD owns a minority stake. "But the actual is more like 40 watts." Part of the Newisys sales pitch is to allow customers to touch the working Opteron chip package, which is "slightly warm to the touch," Hester said. "
the 89 watt figure is the ceiling for Opterons on .13, NOT the actual operating power/heat dissipation for them.
eric_n_dfw
macrumors 68000
Re: Here's my pet theory
We have? I was not aware of this. I wonder why their wasting their time on that though - Classic is becoming irrelevant pretty quickly. Where did you hear it?
It wasn't quiet to anyone who cares about Unix. It was in the ADC newsletter and is linked off the main OS X web page. It is front and center if you click the "Unix" icon on the top OS X page too. (BTW, it's X Window - no "s" on the end - "X Window System" to be 100% geeky)
Most people agreed, the day that they bought it, that MS was more interested in the x86 version of VirtualPC than the Mac version. It will allow them to host Win32 apps on their Win64 platform that might otherwise not be ported - kind-of like a Classic mode for Window 2003 64 Bit edition. (Which is out BTW)
Agreed - but in a few years, when more App's are ported to Cocoa, multiple architectures would be pretty easy to handle. (Maybe even Carbon apps - I haven't looked at Carbon)
😱 yawn. How would that be much better than the "PC on a card" solution that was tried by Apple in the beige days (and by Amiga for that matter). It always ends up costing about as much to provide PC compatible, integrated hardware, just so that you can run PC apps, than it would to just go buy a cheap PC and a KVM switch.
As was said by someone else - as long as Windows is the dominant desktop OS, this would cannibalize OS X application development. (see earlier comment by 3.1416)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by inkswamp
Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what all x86 chips are now. Really not that amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by inkswamp
Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what all x86 chips are now. Really not that amazing.