Apple Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?

[daxomni]

Lots of reactionary stuff in this thread. Time for a reality check. All this talk about I'd never/only buy AMD/Intel is nothing but childish nonsense. Here at work we have had horrible reliability problems with Dell laptops, so we're ending our buying agreement with that portion of their business and forming an agreement with a more capable supplier. However, we've had great reliability from Dell's servers, so we're keeping them and buying more. If and when Dell can fix their laptop problems over the long term we may eventually place a future order with them again. That's how logical buying decisions are made. They attempt to weigh the costs and benefits and risks and go for the best overall value. Both Intel and AMD make hardware that is capable of being used effectively by Apple somewhere in their lineup. That is a simple and obvious fact. They both offer products that are a benefit in cost or performance or availability compared to the other.

Apple is in a fairly unique situation because they are one of the very few remaining Intel-only brands. They also don't normally draw much attention to what is actually inside their case. Excepting a rare deviation for the first use of the A4, Apple generally sells the whole device as one single piece of equipment and leaves the internal technical details out of the marketing equation. This makes future swaps to other sources of compatible hardware easier and less noticeable to the consumer. The consumer might not even know that the CPU is different if they're not a technical junkie. Just like many (most?) iPhone users have little if any idea what exactly is powering their device or who designed it. Apple is unlikely to make a wholesale move to AMD but they may have specific cases in mind where AMD and/or ATI can help them reach a specific cost or performance target. Not to mention that AMD has new developments in the pipeline that may catch up or even leapfrog Intel's current offerings.

I've heard all the same "Nobody will ever beat Intel" claims prior to the K6 and K7 and K8 and each of them managed to beat Intel in one market segment or another. Every R&D department goes through low and high tides. Sometimes talented individuals are cut or leave on their own and sometimes they stay but slowly become complacent and less effective at finding new solutions in a mature market. There is also the possibility that Apple could help shift the balance of power by using some of their enormous pile of cash to help design and fund future projects that result in products AMD sells to them at a preferential rate and schedule. Regardless of your opinion of Intel or AMD or Apple, any development that results in more competition among more competent sources is almost always a net benefit for the consumer, including for people outside Apple's ecosystem.

[trrosen]

Originally Posted by cmaier

For the third time: AMD has ZERO fab facilities. They spun that off into Global Foundries. If Apple wants Global Foundries to make A4 chips, all they have to do is pay, just like everyone else (including AMD).

AMD has lots of FABs there called Global Foundries. AMD still owns Global Foundries just as Apple still owns Filemaker.

[PAC88]

Originally Posted by Mattie Num Nums

Why are you waiting for AMD???

I love AMD.. Intel is like a 1000lb gorilla that plays dirty..

if apple works with AMD and they can because AMD is a small company.. It will take both companies to the next level and Apple will be like they were in the Power PC days..

Apple will have a truly customized and optimized chipset to work with AMD on. Look at what happend with intel.. they are having cpu shortages which caused delays for apple because they are an f'n monopoly and eventually will start to cut down on quality.. Intel is not better than AMD.. they just want to be perceived that way

[djellison]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Precisely. If you wouldn't perceive a difference ...

You would perceive a difference. AMD's best offerings are currently nothing like the current i5/i7/Xeon lines in terms of performance.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Peace

I agree. AMD has some good multi-core chips coming up. Using AMD with their GPU's would make sense.

Isn't Magny Cours the fastest chip ever due to its innovating 12-core implementation? Having said that:

AMD IS DEAD.

[cmaier]

Originally Posted by trrosen

AMD has lots of FABs there called Global Foundries. AMD still owns Global Foundries just as Apple still owns Filemaker.

Um, no. First Global Foundries has ONE fab, in Dresden. When they finish the NY plant they will have 2, though the one in Dresden will be for an older process until it is phased out. Second, AMD owns only 34% of Global Foundries. The rest is owned by an investment fund.

Stop making stuff up.

Edit: Forgot GF bought chartered. Not sure if they are keeping the fab once NY opens.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Isn't Magny Cours the fastest chip ever due to its innovating 12-core implementation? Having said that:

AMD IS DEAD.

It's not even a 12-core chip. It's 2 6-core chips glued together on an MCM.

AMD is indeed dead.

[seveej]

Originally Posted by jragosta

Because today's performance is real and tomorrow is vapor? And because Intel also has improved chips on the horizon?

Back when I was in politics we had a saying:
The incumbent has 0 votes to begin with.
Same applies here.

But honestly dudes. Spew out as much hatred as you want, better here than kicking old ladies/blacks/whites/heteros or whatever your inclination.

The game has very very much changed since Apple got in bed with Intel. Apple is now one of the world's most highly valued companies and companies like that have a need to hedge their strategic risks. Apple's current dependence on Intel is a strategic risk of such a magnitude that the hardiest strategy consultant gets queasy and shaking when asked to draw up a worst-case scenario.

But let me point out a purely technological detail.
AMD has always been a budget supplier, usually pairing lower price with lower performance. Just Like Apple pairs higher price with design excellence and lower performance. And let's face it, Apple is not (except in the MP's maybe) a company which wants top notch processors. And AMD might just give the same performance cheaper.

But as someone here pointed out, chips, integrated circuits and the like are the most subcontracted business there is, even AMD does not make it's own chips. So Apple (which is not an IC dimwit outfit either) could co-operate with AMD designers to come up with something (later manufactured by TSMC or the likes).

My 2 (euro)cents.

[Raidersmojo]

chances of apple buying AMD? I know it sounds farfetched but they seem to be getting into the processor game a little bit with their A4 design. I am wondering if they are thinking about just making their own processors for everything.


doubt it happens, just a thought.


hope we stick with intel though.

[MagicBoy]

I'd never buy an AMD powered Mac. ATI graphics cards are excellent but the CPUs are subpar. They're not fast enough and use too much power.

[Speedy2]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

This posting is clear that the the product in question are AMD CPU. Apple already has access to GPU from ATI so why would execs be in meetings with Apple for GPU only when the partnership in that arena has been established.

Believe it or not, business meetings to discuss the future of current relationships are VERY common in the business world. The new MBPs don't sport AMD GPUs. It is very possible they were discussing the next MBP iteration.
While I believe that to be more likely than a CPU meeting, it could also be very possible that Apple wanted to have a look a Bulldozer to put a little pressure on Intel. From what I've heard, Acer had pre-ordered a lot of mobile Core iX CPUs in Q1 and therefore caused the shortage that forced Apple to push back its MBP refresh. It could very well be that this is their way of getting back at Intel.

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

To relage Bulldozer (AMD's most significant core in 3 years or more) to a pithy comment like "might earn them a few laurel" signifies that you likely have not done due diligence in research

What you think about AMD products today has little bearing on where they will be in 2011 . AMD is clearly stronger in GPU and is more OpenCL compliant than Intel or Nvidia right now. They're already sampling Fusion.

I'm not saying AMD is going to eat all of Intel's business but there's little reason to be Intel only when AMD can offer nice systems that can be priced lower than Intel based computers.

Apple doesn't care about:
- desktop CPUs (save for the iMac, which is now on desktop CPUs)
- CPUs that run very hot under load
- saving a few bucks and sacrificing slim designs and battery life at the same time

Phenoms wouldn't be possible in iMacs because they run too freaking hot, and for everything else Apple uses mobile or server CPUs. AMD's mobile CPUs are just plain crap. There is not a single laptop out there that could match a Macbook's form factor combined with equally long battery life and CPU power. Not even close. AMD is competitive in the server business with their new 12-core-CPU, but we all now how important Mac Pros are nowdays.

You mention Fusion. How is Fusion going to be a danger for Intel's Core iX CPUs with integrated GPU, which are already being sold in huge numbers? Yeah, Fusion's GPU will surely be better, but no one will care if an integrated GPU will be twice as fast. People who need GPU power will put in a dedicated GPU (probably by AMD) and enjoy 10 times the performance. Fusion needs to be sold cheaper than Core iX, that is AMD's only chance. And I'm not sure if putting GPU and CPU on the same die is a wise choice to achieve that goal. They already failed miserably to get an advantage out of the "one-die" strategy with Phenom I and instead suffered huge losses because of it.

Bulldozer looks good, but there are no performance numbers out yet, and no performance/watt figures. It very much looks like a desktop CPU, but the future lies in the mobile space. Desktop is DEAD, and server will remain pretty unimportant.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by shervieux

Apple always said they could not make a netbook under $500 that was not junk. Some people have claimed that the current $200-$300 netbooks were junk and the prices have edged up to the $300-$400 range for a somewhat 1/2 way decent spec'd one.....

Decent enough?

• 64-bit Atom N450 CPU (hyper-threading, 1.66 GHz)
• GMA3150
• Windows 7
• 7.5 hour battery (* usual disclaimer)
• 1 GiB RAM
• 10" LED backlit display
• 1.3 Mpixel webcam
• 160 GB drive
• Stereo speakers
• RJ45 Ethernet and 802.11n
• Card reader (SD/MMC/MS/xD)
• Ports: Headphone, microphone, VGA, 3 USB 2.0, RJ-45

...for about half the price of the big Ipod Touch.

http://www.frys.com/product/6173599#detailed

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Decent enough?

• 64-bit Atom N450 CPU (hyper-threading, 1.66 GHz)
• GMA3150
• Windows 7
• 1 GiB RAM
• 10" LED backlit display
• 1.3 Mpixel webcam
• 160 GB drive
• Stereo speakers
• RJ45 Ethernet and 802.11n
• Card reader (SD/MMC/MS/xD)
• Ports: Headphone, microphone, VGA, 3 USB 2.0, RJ-45

...for about half the price of the big Ipod Touch.

http://www.frys.com/product/6173599#detailed

...and Aiden Shaw strikes again.

No, it's not decent enough:

- it contains Windows;
- it looks fugly;
-it uses Atom;
- it's a netbook.

Have you used an iPad yet before babbling? I suggest you do, as the paradigm shift is mindblowing.

[PAC88]

Originally Posted by MagicBoy

I'd never buy an AMD powered Mac. ATI graphics cards are excellent but the CPUs are subpar. They're not fast enough and use too much power.

What you say is kinda ignorant. You can't predict the future of anything and who says Intel stays on top forever? The only way for AMD to go is up, it just takes a little push from Apple and some R&D. Big things can happen and I won't be surprised when they do.

[alphaod]

This should make hackintoshing an AMD machine much easier.

[wikoogle]

Ideally, AMD's Bulldozer will kick Sandy Bridge in the nuts in terms of performance and Apple makes the switch, followed by everyone else.

I'm getting weary of Intel's monopoly and their attempts to monopolize the GPU market even though they can't make a decent GPU to save their life. The crap they pulled sticking a GPU with every i processor and refusing to let anyone replace or disable the GPU part is nonsense.

Would much prefer to see an AMD Bulldozer paired with an ATI 5870 equivalent in next years Macbook Pros.

[cube]

Originally Posted by cmaier

It's not even a 12-core chip. It's 2 6-core chips glued together on an MCM.

In that case, Intel didn't have dual core and quad core chips for a long time, and AMD was first with them.

[Peace]

Maybe this is why the MBP's were late to the game ? Intel's a bit ticked off at Apple right now.

[Speedy2]

True, AMD offers desktop chips with good value for money.

However, Apple couldn't care less since they are only active in the premium segment, especially in the premium mobile segment. Macbooks in their current incarnation wouldn't be possible with AMD CPUs. They'd be twice as thick and run out of power at half the time. Plus, the performance would be at about 60% of the current models. Is that something you see Apple might be even slightly interested in??

[marksman]

This would have been awesome 10 years ago when AMD was kicking intel's butt.

It is too bad because those were good days where you had options.

[MacintoshMan]

I really hope this is to bully Intel into giving apple what they want (What ever the **** that is)

[cube]

I find the news item inappropriate. Only Intel fanboys label AMD as subpar.

[shervieux]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Decent enough?

• 64-bit Atom N450 CPU (hyper-threading, 1.66 GHz)
• GMA3150
• Windows 7
• 1 GiB RAM
• 10" LED backlit display
• 1.3 Mpixel webcam
• 160 GB drive
• Stereo speakers
• RJ45 Ethernet and 802.11n
• Card reader (SD/MMC/MS/xD)
• Ports: Headphone, microphone, VGA, 3 USB 2.0, RJ-45

...for about half the price of the big Ipod Touch.

http://www.frys.com/product/6173599#detailed

LOL. Ok, ok. Well, There are no FRY's on the east coast, and I yet to see an MSI in a store.... Other than the fact that it has an ATOM, 1gb of ram, has a webcam, and no mention of an opticle drive, that is pretty much the spec of the Lenovo X61 T tablet I picked up at a Lenovo warehouse sale for $400.00 Of course mine is running 3gb ram and Vista Home Premium. The bad part is I find my tablet SLOW..

Wait, how the the heck are they running WIN 7 with 1 gb or ram? that has has got to be a slow machine.

[cmaier]

Originally Posted by cube

In that case, Intel didn't have dual core and quad core chips for a long time, and AMD was first with them.

Yes, that is true. I designed the 2-core, but left before the 4-core.

[SPUY767]

Originally Posted by jaw04005

Sigh. I hope they’re just working on graphics technology. AMD’s processors haven’t been competitive (other than in price) in years.

So why wouldn't an inexpensive AMD be of benefit in a Mac Mini? At the mid range of AMD's lineup, you get more CPU power for your money with AMD than with Intel. That said, I seriously doubt that we'll see AMD processors in high end hardware.

[Speedy2]

Originally Posted by trrosen

AMD has lots of FABs there called Global Foundries. AMD still owns Global Foundries just as Apple still owns Filemaker.

You could hardly be more wrong. AMD only owns about 30% of Global Foundries and has the intention to sell that off in the near future. Major shareholder is ATIC (aka Abu Dhabi)

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/sho...leID=223200132