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.
AMD Based Apple Laptop?
- Thread starter emotion
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Front Page?
Can't believe this is a front page article. It's more likely that I'll see pigs flying when I head to work today.
There can't even be interest in this anymore. What possible benefit could Apple obtain by moving to AMD? Marginally faster server processors? I simply can't believe Apple would spend any R&D (and there is always some R&D that has to be done, even if they are both x86 based) on this unless and until they need to pressure Intel to lower prices or something.
Can't believe this is a front page article. It's more likely that I'll see pigs flying when I head to work today.
There can't even be interest in this anymore. What possible benefit could Apple obtain by moving to AMD? Marginally faster server processors? I simply can't believe Apple would spend any R&D (and there is always some R&D that has to be done, even if they are both x86 based) on this unless and until they need to pressure Intel to lower prices or something.
hahahaha. I'd built up a full mental image before I even clicked the digitimes link. Great post.
Or rather that we haven't removed a letter 'i' from that word.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
AMD's 386 and 486 clones were always cheaper than Intel's, and they always at least matched the clock-for-clock performance of Intel's direct counterparts.
I'm not going to run Xen. In fact, I'm unlikely to ever use virtuialization technology.
I'm going to run QuickTime, and iTunes, and Rosetta, and web browsers, and code spit out by a run-of-the-mill x86_64 variation of GCC.
And none of those sorts of applications require a re-compile. From that perspective, AMD64 and ET64T are close enough to identical to suit my needs.
I have the exact same laptop as yours (well, I did. It's leaving my ownership tonight!), and my first through when I got the new MBP C2D is that the MBP runs cooler than it.
But, I will give you this; my Compaq runs hot, but not always. It's pretty rare when it gets extremely hot, but it is almost always warm. The new MBP, on the other hand, seems like that while it can get hot, it runs cooler overall than my old Compaq.
yes they could. We are not talking about zillion CPU's here. AMD could satisfy Apple's demands just fine.
To software, AMD and Intel are compatable parts. They aren't identical, but most software won't care at all. So this wouldn't be a "switch" like IBM to x86. Nothing disruptive.
The question is, of course, where is the lower-power AMD cpu. Tulatins are not _bad_ chips for power efficiency, but they're certainly bested by core 2 duo. The lack of any strong competition makes this rumour just that.
The question is, of course, where is the lower-power AMD cpu. Tulatins are not _bad_ chips for power efficiency, but they're certainly bested by core 2 duo. The lack of any strong competition makes this rumour just that.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
meh. While it may or may not happen soon in the portables, I really would like to see at least the option sometime next year to get an AMD 4x4 based Mac Pro instead of Intel's pseudo quad-core...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/computers/0,72126-0.html?tw=wn_index_5
I say AMD-based macs will definitely happen. I also say that Apple will not abandon Intel. They will merely offer various machines with your choice based on chips from the two vendors or perhaps some models that use chips from only on of the two vendors while other models let you choose, just as pretty much every single PC maker does these days. All this panic about "Apple wouldn't abandon Intel already", etc. is just silliness. Nobody says they can only work with Intel OR AMD but not both. Working with both is good for everyone as it keeps both suppliers on their toes and more eager to please. Why do you think Hugh Hefner keeps three girfriends these days?
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/computers/0,72126-0.html?tw=wn_index_5
I say AMD-based macs will definitely happen. I also say that Apple will not abandon Intel. They will merely offer various machines with your choice based on chips from the two vendors or perhaps some models that use chips from only on of the two vendors while other models let you choose, just as pretty much every single PC maker does these days. All this panic about "Apple wouldn't abandon Intel already", etc. is just silliness. Nobody says they can only work with Intel OR AMD but not both. Working with both is good for everyone as it keeps both suppliers on their toes and more eager to please. Why do you think Hugh Hefner keeps three girfriends these days?
The only evidence I've seen for AMD's ability to produce chips is that currently they are struggling to meet the market's needs after the deal with Dell. I think it is a fair assumption that AMD's ability to supply Apple was taken into account when the Intel decision was being looked at.
Link?
This is the first I've heard the story put that way. I've many times heard it said that Apple has kept versions of the Mac OS running on different CPUs in their labs, especially since the switch to OS X. Do you have any evidence to back up your supposition?
How does this article answer my question?
Indeed, this article says:
So, Apple had been concurrently developing OS X on Intel and PPC processors for five years. No where does this say that Intel was the one who developed the x86 OS X.
The article only talks about the Star Trek project, which was a collaboration between Apple and Novell (not Intel) to port System 7 to Intel hardware because Sculley wanted to get Apple out of the hardware business. (Could you imagine where we'd be today if Apple had gotten out of the hardware business? That would mean that they would have gone directly head to head against MS in the OS market. I'd guess that Apple wouldn't exist any more, frankly...)
Intel and AMD are binary compatible with exception of AMD's SIMD instructions. Ever wonder why there isn't a different copy of Windows for AMD and Intel?
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
I have had the same amd processor for 6 years and have not had any problems with it. Yep the fans are a bit loud, processor is getting louder. But what do you expect with a close to seven year old computer. Whoops it is now 7 years old not 6. But I am finally getting a new computer tomorrow, which will be my first mac.
I don't see why AMD and Intel OSX laptops can't live together... We all see the windoze users have their choice of AMD or Intel, dual cores or single cores... why can't Apple/OSX?
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic.
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic.
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
I don't see why AMD and Intel OSX laptops can't live together... We all see the windoze users have their choice of AMD or Intel, dual cores or single cores... why can't Apple/OSX?
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic.
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
"Don't exist" is a reference to their production status. I think that we can be pretty sure that there has never been (and will never be) a G5 PowerBook or iBook in production. As to what they had in their labs, who knows. They may (and probably do) have OS X running on every type of processor that they can get their hands on, right now. They may have tablets and PDAs and Phones, oh my! But that's the territory for rumors and speculation, and that's not what we're about here... oh, wait...
It may well be true that Apple could have produced a G5 PowerBook following the design model used for the iMac, but you'd end up with a PowerBook that was many inches thick (the current 17" C2D iMac is 6.8 inches thick), versus the previous G4 PowerBook, which was a mere 1 inch thick. It would never have sold in the quantities that would have justified producing it.
As for Intel and AMD together, sure, eventually, maybe. The reason that it would be a mistake at this point is that Apple has a relatively small market, and so it needs to keep a clean product line. Muddying the water of what Apple is offering would only hurt Apple sales, at this point.
Hot processors you say? Big fans? Why, it'll be just like the old G5 days! But I doubt AMD is as bad a IBM PPC. Time will tell. With the purchase of ATI, AMD's going to be a big player in the market. I can't help but think that this will be better for ATI than AMD. Let's see if Intel buys nVidia to level the playing field.
Let me clear something up, IA32e is what a 64 bit intel chip uses to run 32-bit operating systems and applications. You probably meant EM64T which is what gives the chip the capability to read 64-bit instructions.
Intel® 64 Architecture
The name is now "Intel® 64 Architecture".
http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm
The name is now "Intel® 64 Architecture".
http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm
Intel® 64 Architecture
Intel® 64 architecture (formerly known as Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, or Intel® EM64T) enables 64-bit computing on server, workstation, desktop and mobile platforms when combined with supporting software.¹ Intel 64 architecture improves performance by allowing systems to address more than 4 gigabytes (GB) of both virtual and physical memory. Today, all Intel® processors for server and workstation platforms support 64-bit computing. And with the introduction of Intel® Core2 Duo processors in the second half of 2006, most Intel desktop and mobile processors are also 64-bit capable. Intel 64 provides support for:
Intel® 64 architecture (formerly known as Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, or Intel® EM64T) enables 64-bit computing on server, workstation, desktop and mobile platforms when combined with supporting software.¹ Intel 64 architecture improves performance by allowing systems to address more than 4 gigabytes (GB) of both virtual and physical memory. Today, all Intel® processors for server and workstation platforms support 64-bit computing. And with the introduction of Intel® Core2 Duo processors in the second half of 2006, most Intel desktop and mobile processors are also 64-bit capable. Intel 64 provides support for:
- 64-bit flat virtual address space
- 64-bit pointers
- 64-bit wide general purpose registers
- 64-bit integer support
- Up to one terabyte (TB) of platform address space