Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and AMD Rumors

Originally posted by Dave K


http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1035_747_23,00.html



Circa 28-Jan-2002.

Add in costs for L3 and the custom daughterboard and the final price for finished product will go up.
Click to expand...

Here is the link to AMD pricing @ 1K trays:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

In 1K volume you can get an XP 2700+ for $349ea. That's only $3 off the Pricewatch price!

I guess I am ignorant of the PPC world, why do you need to have a daughterboard for a processor?

Another interesting thought that I had is this:
Since we all assume the next processor Apple will use will be 64-bit, and they don't want to go with the Itanic, or Sparc, it pretty much boils down to either the IBM 970 or the AMD Hammer. What will the estimated pricing be on each of these? I've read anywhere from $400-$600 ea for the Hammer. Again that's only a rumor, since very few actual Hammer Processors are in existance.

Also, could Apple benifit (price wise) by going with the Hammer, due to the assumption that there will be a greater volume of Hammers sold? I don't think IBM has any other customers or applications for their 970, do they?
 
Both Apple and AMD are sponsors here at ApacheCon just across town from COMDEX. I'll be posting if I hear anything - nothing from Apple yet and the AMD guy will only answer my questions with "I cannot comment on that at this time." Pah....
 
From the sounds of things on here it sounds like Apple did go x86. I see where a few are talking about returning their new machines. Any more information about the x86 announcement?
 
Originally posted by sturm375
How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor?
Click to expand...

about $250 manufacturing cost.


also, just because Apple licenses AMD technology doesn't mean they're going to use it. They may simply be trying to increase competition in the Mac processor marketplace.
 
Why?

Why are some of you so desperate to go x86? Opteron isn't out yet, but has been rumoured to debut at 500Mhz, nobody knows how it will scale, all we know is it's 100% incompatible with everything we have ever had.

What do all think we would gain?
 
BlackCat

If you research some of the rumor links throughout this forum, you'll notice many statements referring to the fact that the Opteron hasnt been announced yet because AMD has been waiting for OSX to be configured for 64 bit........Regardless, its all about SPEED. Mac users (like myself) dont realize just how slow G4's really are until they start using PC's (which I have)

Photoshop, Maya, Premiere, etc. They are slower. They just are.

Switching to AMD processors would change all that.


***However, Im beginning to believe that this is all about HyperTransport........AMD and Apple have been forerunners on this tecnology since last year, and press covered it largely around July.

kudos for the first poster on this because I think they're right.....
 
Re: Why?

Originally posted by Blackcat
Why are some of you so desperate to go x86? Opteron isn't out yet, but has been rumoured to debut at 500Mhz, nobody knows how it will scale, all we know is it's 100% incompatible with everything we have ever had.

What do all think we would gain?
Click to expand...

Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...
 
64 bit, regardless of Mhz, is very very fast.

But there hasnt been any official announcement yet Abercrombie boy----
 
If it happens maybe Steven will come an be a spokesperson for the new x86 Macs, he's got some free time - and so does the cow.
 
Re: BlackCat

Originally posted by agreenster
If you research some of the rumor links throughout this forum, you'll notice many statements referring to the fact that the Opteron hasnt been announced yet because AMD has been waiting for OSX to be configured for 64 bit........Regardless, its all about SPEED. Mac users (like myself) dont realize just how slow G4's really are until they start using PC's (which I have)

Photoshop, Maya, Premiere, etc. They are slower. They just are.

Switching to AMD processors would change all that.
Click to expand...

So basically it's not about what's best for Apple, it's a speed envy thing.

We'd all love faster Macs, but I'd rather not destroy all that has been done for 6 months of PC comparable speed before the lights go out. Never mind that in mid 2003 the 970 will be released with a 900Mhz bus. Never mind that all the classic apps wouldn't run. Never mind that a patch to install X on a Dell would be out in weeks.

No, forget logic, throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets get a quick fix.
 
Originally posted by agreenster
64 bit, regardless of Mhz, is very very fast.

But there hasnt been any official announcement yet Abercrombie boy----
Click to expand...

64bit has nothing at all to do with speed. It is to do with data precision and address space.
 
Re: Re: Why?

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...
Click to expand...

not sure where you got that from about a 500mhz Opteron blowing the doors of a 970 1.8Ghz, what a load of shi!

plus where also did you get the idea that a x86 is mor modern the a PowerPC, the x86 is CISC based and a powerpc is a RISC based processor. do some research, here's a clue RISC was introduced as a more modern approach to processor design.
 
Originally posted by Blackcat


64bit has nothing at all to do with speed. It is to do with data precision and address space.
Click to expand...

I believe 64 bit does have something to do with overall speed (ie memory retrieval), but it does indeed have nothing to do with processor speed.
 
Re: Re: BlackCat

Originally posted by Blackcat


So basically it's not about what's best for Apple, it's a speed envy thing.

We'd all love faster Macs, but I'd rather not destroy all that has been done for 6 months of PC comparable speed before the lights go out. Never mind that in mid 2003 the 970 will be released with a 900Mhz bus. Never mind that all the classic apps wouldn't run. Never mind that a patch to install X on a Dell would be out in weeks.

No, forget logic, throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets get a quick fix.
Click to expand...

If by mid 2003 you mean late 2003, then yes. And currently the hammar is ahead of the power4 in the speed race, and the 970 will undoubtedly be slower than the power4. And I certaily doubt there will be a patch to install X on a Dell...
 
I understand how 64 bit addressing works. Therefore, the more data you push, the faster your overall perfromance can be.

IBM 970, or AMD Hammer. I care not. Give me either.

But its not about speed ENVY, its about productivity, and the difference betwen sitting and waiting and getting something done.


STILL--regardless---This is all still about HyperTransport. Note my above posts.

Maybe even a Tablet lurking.......
 
Re: Re: Why?

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...
Click to expand...

But x86 isn't more advanced at all. It has a higher clockspeed due to excessively long pipelines and a better bus, but a great deal of it is hype. Of course a 3Ghz P4 is faster than a 1Ghz G4, but is it 2Ghz worth faster? No.

Sure PPC has fallen behind due to Moto having no real incentive, but build G4s on a better process at .9nm and watch them speed up and get cheaper.

I think the 970 holds great promise. But we'll need to wait and see.
 
Re: Re: Re: Why?

Originally posted by Mr Jobs


not sure where you got that from about a 500mhz Opteron blowing the doors of a 970 1.8Ghz, what a load of shi!

plus where also did you get the idea that a x86 is mor modern the a PowerPC, the x86 is CISC based and a powerpc is a RISC based processor. do some research, here's a clue RISC was introduced as a more modern approach to processor design.
Click to expand...

the x86 instruction set is CISC. the Power PC instruction set is RISC. The Opteron is a RISC based processor that implements the CISC instruction set- in other words, it EMULATES a CISC, and is not a CISC in itself. This implies that, with a little engineering, it could also be used to implement a RISC instruction set.

Additionally, it wasn't a 500 mhz Opteron, it was more like 1.4 GHz or 2 GHz or something of that sort (I can't remember off of the top of my head). The 970 numbers are theoretical. The Opteron numbers are theoretical.
 
Keynote

Originally posted by Thirteenva
OK, so what happened, what was the shattering anouncement by AMD??????
Click to expand...

I would assume it's going on right now (scheduled to start 10 minutes ago), and I doubt it will be the first thing out of his mouth.
 
Re: Re: Re: Why?

Originally posted by Blackcat


But x86 isn't more advanced at all. It has a higher clockspeed due to excessively long pipelines and a better bus, but a great deal of it is hype. Of course a 3Ghz P4 is faster than a 1Ghz G4, but is it 2Ghz worth faster? No.

Sure PPC has fallen behind due to Moto having no real incentive, but build G4s on a better process at .9nm and watch them speed up and get cheaper.

I think the 970 holds great promise. But we'll need to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Instead of .9nm, you meant 0.09nm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back