Don't forget similar.
They're ultimately going to be implemented differently. Like if AMD does implement thread duality(Not quite sure what to call it) its not going to be the same as "hyper-threading" but it will appear to be the same.
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
Don't forget similar.
They're ultimately going to be implemented differently. Like if AMD does implement thread duality(Not quite sure what to call it) its not going to be the same as "hyper-threading" but it will appear to be the same.
Well, Apple doesn't feel the need to include top of the line GPU units in ANY of their computers, so why not include inferior CPUs as well? Cheaper cost = more profit for Apple = happy stock holders = same price for consumers (prices not passed on). Let's face it. 85% of Mac users probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an Intel Core Solo from 3 years ago to an I7 to an AMD chip because most of those users don't do anything processor intensive enough to even NOTICE a difference (other than encoding video or 3D modeling, the Mac doesn't have much processor intensive to do in the first place since the GPU is too weak to do power gaming and that is the #1 most intensive use of hardware on a Windows PC. Everything else is just fanboys playing number games in their heads and upgrading every year or every other year because they want to have bragging rights. I have a PowerMac from 2001 (upgraded to perhaps 2004 or 2005 specs) and it does 90% of my computing needs. My PC and MBP do the video encoding and my PC plays the games. Who cares if the CPU is old and crappy. Most Macs (or should I say Mac users?) don't need modern hardware. Most would be happy with an iPad, IMO. It's simpler to use for the computer illiterate.
I'd be a little surprised if Apple didn't have builds of OS X (at least the core of it) running on all kinds of architectures Intel, AMD, SPARC, Power chips, maybe even CELL and Apples A4 (or future Apple chips in development)
but in regards to the topic at hand, it's just as likely that Apple was talking about graphics options with them as a CPU isn't it ?
but in regards to the topic at hand, it's just as likely that Apple was talking about graphics options with them as a CPU isn't it ?
I'm starting to think that's a "We didn't invent it" problem. Nobody knows something better than its inventors.
Didn't AMD start out by completely reverse engineering X86?
Weirdly enough 64bit by Intel was an abysmal mess.
i really like amd. i've built a few PCs with them before. i do think intel is outpacing them at the moment. but amds are still decent chips imo
look at this 6core i5/i7 challanger. i'd def want one.
they are working on battery/power as well.
review here: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1246/
look at this 6core i5/i7 challanger. i'd def want one.
they are working on battery/power as well.
review here: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1246/
Show me a 10 year old PC laptop that will be able to run Windows 7 and Photoshop CS5.
I ask once again, what is the problem/difference between an old Mac still running and an old PC running?
I would humbly disagree, I think the platform most intensive of their hardware wold be the Linux supercomputer OSes.
But, in everyday use a the most hardware intensive platforms would be consoles. The X360 is reaching its limit and the PS3 is starting to get its power tapped into.
sounds like it would be true. we met a guy from AST compters in penang in 1991, the ASTs had AMD cpus in it. my dad got one shortly after as did my sis. there good machines. i have made at least 2 amd machinces, when amd was leading over intel in the early to mid 2000s.
they are not currently the fastest, but they are still hell good. and i think it's a bit **** when every thing is compared on to that level. most people don't buy the fastest CPUs anyway. so they would be perfect for an imac or mac mini, or a new range of devices. they are also storming it in laptop gpus. they have bought out some great ones recently.
i would love to have the options of both CPUs. and i think apple could do it in a way that it would still capture a certain part of the market.
i really don't think you'll notice a performance drop. i always found my amd cpus to feel 'snappier' than the p4s. so i would welcome amd cpus. there's nothing wrong with them, and most people don;t need the power.
i am sure if apple can capture a lower socio economic group with cheaper machines, without the CPU delays of intel, i would welcome it. AMD was top of the game at one stage (though unpopular). if apple go with them (and they get a dedicated revene stream) i would be very very interested in what they come out with.
Right, I said Windows 7 and CS5 and I find this funny coming from the guy that doesn't nothing but tout 10.4 as being the best Mac OS.
No, AMD did not reverse engineer it. They started as an authorized second source - Intel's customers wanted a second source, so Intel licensed AMD to fab Intel designs. Eventually AMD started designing its own chips, with little success until it bought Nexgen, which resulted in the K6.
That's not entirely representative of Apples approach. Apples payout per share has not been that great, compared to its earnings. Apple has been actively retaining earnings for quite some time now. This give Apple the ability to acquire companies who are developing technology Apple likes, it also gives Apple the ability to give capital to companies who can develop hardware to their specifications.
I would not be surprised if the end result of this is AMD developing specialized hardware for Apple products, according to Apple designs.
Apples heavy investment is R&D is a very good thing for consumers, in the long run, that's a very good thing for shareholders.
Apple is sitting on about $40 billion in cash, which is very close to Microsoft's $50 billion in cash reserves, considering market share. It's incredibly close considering market share. This is capital on hand designated to developing or acquiring beneficial tech.
Dude, 10.4 was an awesome OS.
It just looked like turd and computing moves on.
Fedora 10 was an awesome OS. So was 98SE.
I'm not saying 10.4 is still the best Mac OS, from what I've read from this Eidorian guy he still believes that it is.
I'm going to need more specific details on CS5's system requirements. I don't know what the installer is looking for either.
This is vague enough that SSE2 might not be required. After that time wins in the end if you're patient enough. It's just x86.Adobe said:
Is there something wrong with my opinion?
Yeah, the fact that you're trying to back up this guy complaining about my iBook running 10.4.
Those are the requirements for Photoshop itself. Did you read the rest of my post as well?
I remember 10.4 being new back in 2005.
Oh lolololol.
Seriously. I have a AMD Athlon II X2 build that I made for an HTPC because this little bitch is SO SILENT. You seriously wouldn't know it is there. Does 1080p on integrated HD4200 too : D
I'm neutral on this issue. If AMD has future chips in the pipeline that are as good as or better than the current Intel offerings, than I'm all for a Mac with an AMD in it. Oh, and watch this video if you're interested, Jobs discusses AMD in an interview with CNBC in this video(6:45 mark). Albeit prospects have changed since 2006, still interesting.
Yes they can, they just can't have the integrated solutions.To Apple
You can put nvidia graphic with core ix
iNtel
Yeah, but in WWDC 2005 (the same keynote as the intel switch) he says "An even bigger transition was from OS9 to OSX. [...] OSX is the most advanced operating system on the planet, and it has set Apple up for the next 20 years" (can be seen here at the 1:08 mark.)
Last I checked you have access to the internet to search for things. Maybe you should try it out and get back to me with your results.
Right, I'm sure you also remember how many times you still say how great it is.
My concern is that with the slower update cycles we're encountering under Snow Leopard is that much older problems are going to be ignored or not fixed until 10.6.4, etc. There need to be smaller updates targeting specific models if OS X is up for the "next 20 years" instead of hoping for a solution from the once in a blue moon 700 MB point release.
Then again it might just be a sign that Apple wants us to buy new hardware.
I believe you should consider this post in more detail.
What's the relevance of this?
Steve Jobs sometimes gives me idea that he has completely forgotten how computers work.