AMD Bulldozer

Discussion in 'iMac' started by zulkiflim, Mar 27, 2011.

  1. zulkiflim macrumors regular

    zulkiflim

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Location:
    Singapore
    #1
    Heya


    What if Apple decides to go with AMD processors??

    The new architecture Bulldozer ?
    Supposedly benchmarks are equivalent or better than Intel i7....

    But AMD does not support thunderbolt yet ...right??

    As for price, AMD chips are cheaper and if newegg is to go by the best seller are AMD phenom, with good review against everyday usage...
     
  2. SDub90 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island
    #2
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    As much as I love AMD I don't see it happening soon, for the most part their processors have a much higher thermal output (from what I remember, haven't been on top of that lately) and will not have the same performance to energy efficiency as the intels.
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    Doubtful. There have been rumors about Apple adopting AMD CPUs for decades but it has not happened and I doubt it will ever happen. AMD will never support Thunderbolt as it is Intel's creation and requires an Intel chipset. AMD does not want to give money to their biggest rival and Intel does not want to give something that great to their rival, they want to keep it as their feature.
     
  4. MacHamster68, Mar 27, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #4
    Apple is bound to intel . even if AMD would build a processor that is 100 times faster they could not take it
    thats like asking if GM would build in Ford engines in Chevrolet's because they offer a more powerful one
    both things wont happen as long as the earth is turning around the sun ,so we have to wait for 2012 so we need to wait for nibriu to colide with earth , maybe after that incident apple is switching to AMD :D


    but jokes aside when apple developed OSX they developed it to run on intel too from the first day and still convinced customers PPC is the way to go , so it would not surprise me if they would still do the same now telling customers intel is the future and one day announce the transition to AMD, as hackintosher's know OSX runs on AMD too, and Apple is using ATI GPU's and ATI is a stepdoughter of AMD, so if Thunderbold or lightpeak how its called in pc world does not turn out as well as hoped there is a chance , small but there is one


    i mean if you would have asked in 2004 in here if apple would build in intel processors ,
    everyone would have told your "that will never happen, ppc processors are far to superior "

    and the real reason for switching from PPC to intel explained by steve
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQcwkHwCmw
    and the most important thing he forgot , any future Mac has to be able to run windows natively for whatever reason that might be :confused :
    so just wait for the transition to AMD :)
     
  5. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #5
    It's easily doable. I can definitely see Apple using AMD products in the MBA and MacBook.
     
  6. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #6
    AMD products are already in the MBP 15" &17", it is called the GPU
     
  7. xheathen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #7
    This is where I'd assume we'll continue to see trends. Intel simply makes better cpu's all around. Bulldozer would only enjoy a very brief stay at the top and would quickly fall behind. But they do make fantastic GPU's thanks to ATI. I personally see Apple continuing to leverage that fact.
     
  8. Stan Mikulenka macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    #8
    Hi xheathen,
    this is your 'smart' quote: 'Intel simply makes better cpu's all around.'
    Check this & weep:
     

    Attached Files:

  9. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #9
    They won't.

    The ONLY reason AMD still exists today is because Intel's Pentium 4 was garbage, it allowed AMD to have a better marketing position for their their slightly better Athlon and Duron CPUs.

    Once Intel released the Core series in 2006 AMD was blown out of the water with only suckered-in fans still standing by them. If AMD hadn't bought ATI with the cash they managed to get back then, they would already be out of business.

    I feel sorry for you because of your ignorance. What you show means nothing. Xeon is a workstation CPU. Opteron is a purely server CPU.
     
  10. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #10
    AMD dominates the low-end server market. Intel has no place there due to their pricing.

    Both, Xeons and Opterons are meant for workstations AND servers.
     
  11. zulkiflim thread starter macrumors regular

    zulkiflim

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    Heya


    I agree about past and chips,just search youtube on it.

    They "explode" without a cooling mechanism on it,but for the life of me i would never ever run machine without a cooling /stock heatsink.

    The current leaked specs about Bulldozers about cooling and power consumption are a lot better compared to i7 chips.

    Goggle for leaked sideshows..
    Seem such an opportune time for the document to be released with the new i7 Intel "Sandy Bridge" chip recall.

    But I think Apple will know best what to do in line with future plans.

    Some spec on power..note the source...:)

    http://www.rumorpedia.net/amd-llano-benchmarks-vs-sandy-bridge-slides-leaked/
     
  12. MacHamster68, Mar 28, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #12
    i prefer AMD cpu's in the gaming rigs i build, far more stable to overclock beyond the 4 ghz ,
    with a bit liquid nitro 7ghz are possible ..then it only is a question of how long your supply of liquid nitro lasts , just dont forget do not to get in contact with bare skin



    and yes the opterons are not meant for normal pc's , but they make a great foundation for a gaming rig too especially if you choose a multi processor board ;)
     
  13. CaoCao, Mar 28, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011

    CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #13
    First AMD dodges death because the Pentium 4 was a POS, now they appear to have gotten a temporary boost due to Sandy Bridge chipset problems. Perhaps Bulldozer will be good enough that it can actually be a competitor in the high end market, bobcat/fusion seem to have secured a place in the low end.

    Scratch that, people have OC'ed SB to 5.7GHz on air
     
  14. cube, Mar 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2011

    cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    Where did you see that Thunderbolt requires an Intel chipset? AFAIK, it only requires an Intel controller chip at the moment.

    And you can build serious workstations and servers with Athlon and Phenom chips too because they support ECC, unlike Core. For example, the new Dell "micro servers" (more like micro blades, actually).

    There are Atom servers, but that is more of an adaptation. Intel is supposed to make real Atom server chips in the future.

    The first desktop Bulldozer chips will be more at the enthusiast level, they won't be Fusion chips.

    On the other hand, Llano seemingly will not have L3 and the core won't be really new (Stars+), so it will be more of a mainstream chip, maybe not enough for the top iMac, and Apple would certainly stick to one vendor for the whole line.

    Where I would hope to see Fusion APUs ASAP would be in the MBA and MBP, as Sandy Bridge has a poor GPU.

    In a year there will be Bulldozer APUs, maybe then it would be the time for the iMac.
     
  15. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #15
    Maybe I should have phrased myself better. I'm not 100% does it technically require an Intel chipset but I'm fairly sure Intel won't license it for other chipsets. AMD also bashed it already so sounds like they are not interested either.
     
  16. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #16
    How many computer makers offer Opterons in consumer-grade workstations? None.
     
  17. MacHamster68, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #17
    having said al that above , i am very happy about the performance of my bladecentre and its power6+ ;)running various distros of Linux

    and dont forget there is still another maker of processors largely overlooked
    and thats ultra spark T2+ or even spark T3 made by texas instruments for sun and fujitsu siemens

    most computer makers just think in the same box that is intel or if lucky amd and dont even consider anything else

    how was that with "think different"

    a MacPro with a spark T3 sounds good too and the MacPro is not a consumer workstation or?

    16 CPU cores
    8 hardware threads per core
    6 MB Level 2 cache
    2 embedded coherency controllers
    6 coherence links
    14 unidirectional lanes per coherence link
    SMP to 4 sockets without glue circuitry
    4 DDR3 SDRAM memory channels
    Embedded PCI Express I/O interfaces
    16 Embedded Crypto Acceleration Engines
    2 Embedded 1GigE/10GigE interfaces
    2.4Tb/s aggregate throughput per socket

    just thinking different :D
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #18
    And how many offer Xeons? None, because workstations are not aimed for consumers.
     
  19. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
  20. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #20
    How is Mac Pro meant for consumers? Also, your Dell link:

    Here is Dell's computers for home, i.e. consumer computers. None of them is equipped with Xeon or Opteron.
     
  21. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #21
    Anyone can buy them and they are sold alongside every other computer. When Apple sold Servers and professional hardware, it was separate.
     
  22. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #22
    Nothing stopped anyone from buying an XServe when Apple still sold them.
     
  23. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #23
    I think that would raise antitrust issues.

    You can buy any Opteron workstation and run Windows on it.

    Also, you can even buy an Athlon/Phenom motherboard supporting ECC and build an ultra cheap workstation yourself.
     
  24. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #24
    yes possibly you can ...but who would want to do that by choice :eek::confused:
     
  25. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #25
    It's sad. I want AMD to succeed, but right now, Intel is just steamrolling them where it counts.

    Bulldozer sounds good on paper, but until it's actually mass released, it's still vaporware in my eyes.

    Intel has much better performance per watt, performance per clock, and is a generation ahead in die shrink technology. Until AMD can actually catch up (realistically on the first two,) I (and I'm assuming many others) will be sticking with Intel.
     

Share This Page