I honestly feel this is the case, too.
Otherwise, if it's true, it makes for a very depressing rumor.
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 Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?
- Thread starter *LTD*
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I honestly feel this is the case, too.
Otherwise, if it's true, it makes for a very depressing rumor.
i read only the first 4-5 pages, so i apologize if someone mentioned this before , but if apple buys AMD (and NVIDIA) then wouldn't that lawsuit between AMD and INTEL be null? and wouldn't it give apple the advantage because they work exclusively with INTEL, so they can make the NVIDIA graphics cards to work more intergrated with the INTEL chipsets (like NVIDIA was trying to do, but INTEL doesn't want them to)? also, by buying AMD (for NVIDIA) they could get their next OSX to work better with the graphics cores? i'm no tech but this seems like a good reason to buy AMD &/or NVIDIA.
There's no difference between a fab and a foundry. I think what you're trying to get at is the difference between owning a fab and contracting one. When you contract a fab, you are not "allotted blocks of time." You pay for wafer starts. The fab can only make X wafer starts per day, and you can buy some portion of that. In some cases you can even buy partial wafers, and share a wafer with other folks.
Intel's yield is much higher than AMD's.
Well, maybe. The way we dealt with it was to make sure our dies were much smaller than Intel's, so we got more die per wafer. We also switched to 12" wafers before Intel, to keep capacities up. And we sold 3-core chips
But all else equal, more yield is better, of course.HT is not the reason for Intel's greater performance with the i7s (and some i5s) over AMD's offerings.
And don't forget, AMD is working on the Phenom II X6 and features similar to what Nehalem and its derivations offer, such as transistor power gating and such.
Also, people here are seriously misleading themselves if they think that Apple wouldn't be willing to switch to having some AMD-based systems. Outside of a few offerings, Apple rarely is a part of the "highest performance available" game (even the i7-based iMacs are still relatively inferior when it comes to hardware of most PC systems when the overall system is taken into account), and so if they could trade a slight performance loss for lower costs/higher margins, who knows.
Apple has just announced record profits which means they're once again taking advantage of weaker competition and we're paying through the nose.
First of all, Apple wouldn't buy both AMD and nVidia. While I don't think it's an impossible rumor, I do think the chances of Apple doing any such thing is vastly remote. First of all, given that a lot of nVidia's revenue comes from products focused on the PC markets, it would cost Apple a considerable amount of money to purchase them, only to then either a) continue to produce GPU/GPGPU designs that are sold to competitors, so as to make a ROI, or b) focus them towards designs for use in Apple's own computers which would seem like a questionable investment at best. A lot of the selling points for nVidia's products, Apple has had no interest in incorporating, so I don't see why they rush to do so now.
When it comes to AMD, it's a bit more clouded. On the one hand, Apple would be obtaining a CPU and GPU design firm who also has a large interest in a foundry (Global Foundries). So that obviously could provide a benefit in regards to tighter system design and integration with OS X, as they could dictate design goals to match what they wish to do. On the other hand, a lot of people think that purchasing AMD would allow Apple to manufacture X86 processors, but if I recall correctly from what I've read in the past, the X86 license is non-transferable upon AMD being purchased. I may be wrong about this, but if I'm right, a purchase by any company would essentially allow Intel to terminate the cross-licensing agreement.
Wafer starts = fab time.
I spent countless hours trying to recapture <1% which equated to hundreds of thousands of die.
wafer starts != fab time. Just because a wafer starts doesn't mean it finishes.
I think its good for 
. Llano will kick major ass in integrated gpu performance whilst not being that far behind in processor performance. Also don't forget about Bobcat - I can see an iPad like device using AMD's Bobcat core for a full OSX experience
Also Bulldozer is RUMOURED to be AT LEAST equal to Sandy Bridge... we will see. AMD's upcoming lines on their roadmap does look to be promising.
. Llano will kick major ass in integrated gpu performance whilst not being that far behind in processor performance. Also don't forget about Bobcat - I can see an iPad like device using AMD's Bobcat core for a full OSX experienceAlso Bulldozer is RUMOURED to be AT LEAST equal to Sandy Bridge... we will see. AMD's upcoming lines on their roadmap does look to be promising.
why would Apple buy AMD/ATI if they just introduced new MBP's with Nvidia GPU's and chipsets?
What is wrong with AMD chips? That they benchmark slightly lower than Intel chips? That doesn't mean they aren't powerful enough to get work done, especially the kind of work average consumers do.
they are still 45nm
You are saying the same point... I say market, you can call it "class of market". The point I was making was they are not after the same consumer. You seem to agree but like to argue? It's just as Apple isn't after the same consumer as other computer brands or Lamborghini as Toyota. There are no $185+ desktop cpu because the don't want to sell in the high end cpu market. There is no $250 Apple netbook because they don't want to sell in the low end market.
Where's the 930, 950, 960, 975, 980 etc. in your benchmarks? They are not there because they don't have a cpu to compete with it.
I give up.
Ouch.
I think Apple is doing the right thing by continuing to explore options; Intel needs to know they can't always just do what they want.
I also think, as graphics and CPUs are becoming more closely related, that AMD/ATi could be the way forward, (but not just yet perhaps...).
HELL NO!
That's my opinion on AMD processors. If Apple were to give me the option to chose between an AMD or an Intel processor, I wouldn't have a problem with this; but as we all know, Apple isn't big on the whole "the consumer knows what's best for themselves" thing.
Don
That's my opinion on AMD processors. If Apple were to give me the option to chose between an AMD or an Intel processor, I wouldn't have a problem with this; but as we all know, Apple isn't big on the whole "the consumer knows what's best for themselves" thing.
Don
I worked at AMD designing CPUs from 1997-2006. I assure you AMD wants to sell high end desktop CPUs. They just can't, because they can't make CPUs good enough that people would be willing to buy them.
You are saying the same point... I say market, you can call it "class of market". The point I was making was they are not after the same consumer. You seem to agree but like to argue? It's just as Apple isn't after the same consumer as other computer brands or Lamborghini as Toyota. There are no $185+ desktop cpu because the don't want to sell in the high end cpu market. There is no $250 Apple netbook because they don't want to sell in the low end market.
Where's the 930, 950, 960, 975, 980 etc. in your benchmarks? They are not there because they don't have a cpu to compete with it.
I give up.
(found the horse icon)
I can't do work for my actual job on a Commodore 64, but it was and is a computer. In fact it got me through 3 years of high school and the first year of college majoring in Data Processing, until what we started learning was a little more advanced. I did not use it just for games, I had a word processing application, used it for Basic Programming, ran a BBS, and even had a 300 baud modem that i used to dial into a PDP 11 and check jobs and kick off night processing from home, so that the reports would be ready by the time I drove into work.
I can't do work for my actual job on a Linux box - I support Microsoft SQL Server Databases and need direct access to the OS, SQL server, IIS, etc - through the SQL Server Management studio itself. That does not negate Linux computers as being a computer. About the only thing I could do with a linux box would be RDP. Could not use it on the servers that require PC Anywhere.
But I can use the iPad in terms of iWork, Omnigraffle, Padnotes, MobileNoter, ProjectPlanner (waiting on OmniPlan to be avaialble), and others to support my work needs. Plus with the RDP, VNC, Webex, etc apps - I can also do more than just "office type stuff", that also support my work. So the iPad can very well be a real computer. in fact about the only thing lacking for me is the VPN, which would really not be too much of an issue as I could RDP into my work computer from my couch cross my wireless network and then launch the VPN and use my ipad to control my work computer.
In my ministry, there are a lot of apps for the ipad that support my bible study, sermon preparation, powerpoints (Key note in iwork), etc.
So I would not say that ipad is not a computer. maybe by your definition, you don't want to call it a computer - because it is not a fit in your life. However it seems to fit a lot of lives.
What is a computer:
# A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a set of instructions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
# Before electronic computers became commercially available, the term "computer", in use from the mid 17th century, literally meant "one who computes": a person performing mathematical calculations. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(person)
So before you say an iPad is not a computer - it is. It just does not fit you.
You are saying the same point... I say market, you can call it "class of market". The point I was making was they are not after the same consumer. You seem to agree but like to argue? It's just as Apple isn't after the same consumer as other computer brands or Lamborghini as Toyota. There are no $185+ desktop cpu because the don't want to sell in the high end cpu market. There is no $250 Apple netbook because they don't want to sell in the low end market.
Where's the 930, 950, 960, 975, 980 etc. in your benchmarks? They are not there because they don't have a cpu to compete with it.
I give up.
(found the horse icon)
Yet the only i7 CPU apple have in their products is the 2.8 GHz 860. Where are the 930, 40 Blah Blah Blah in Apple's Products? Remember we're discussing in context with Apple. Theres no point comparing the utter most high end.
You just compared a Single Core to a Dual Core. Quite likely the RAM was slower too, the hard drive was definitely slower. Very poor reasoning.
No worse than the fanboys here quoting richlydrafted, daringfireball etc.
What do you use your netbook for? Any benchmarks I have seen put them ahead of the iPad for web surfing. A netbook has far more storage than an iPad, is easier to transfer files too, easier to print from. Some netbooks have ION chipset, can play HD, can be connected to a TV. A Mac at the same price would be second hand, close to the end of its life and have crappy flash playback (i.e. youtube or any other movie site). Crappy graphics, no way to connect to a TV without another adapter. What are you trying to use it for that you call it underperforming? Really you just show yourself to be a snob.
On topic, AMD just received a huge payment from Intel which helped them settle a lot of debts. Another part of the deal was cross licensing. At the moment they are behind on peformance and heat but it remains to be seen what they can do in the future.
Apple used to be a hardware company, it was way ahead of its time.
I'm hoping that Apple's current strength can be combined with AMD's current weakness to direct the development of hardware that will benefit Apple. Most importantly, benefit Apples users.
Apple has always paid close attention to integrating software and hardware to improve the end user experience.
I don't think Intel is willing to work as closely with Apple as Apple would like. I think AMD is much more willing to work with Apple on future chip development. Apple would benefit from influencing the design process, and AMD would benefit from the business.
Great things could come of this.
I'm hoping that Apple's current strength can be combined with AMD's current weakness to direct the development of hardware that will benefit Apple. Most importantly, benefit Apples users.
Apple has always paid close attention to integrating software and hardware to improve the end user experience.
I don't think Intel is willing to work as closely with Apple as Apple would like. I think AMD is much more willing to work with Apple on future chip development. Apple would benefit from influencing the design process, and AMD would benefit from the business.
Great things could come of this.