Apple Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?

[alent1234]

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.

my first PC was an AST. it had the stupid recovery disk and when i bought a new hard drive and copied the C drive over to it, i found the 4 files it looked at to verify it was an AST so i could recover it to the new hard drive.

then i bought WIndows 98 Upgrade CD and figured out that you could use it on a blank hard drive and it needed a previous OS CD to "verify"

the AMD CPU said it ran as fast as a pentium even though it was an over clocked 486. the original Red Alert ran OK, but Privateer ran like molasses and when i built a new computer and it ran like lightning i saw how much i really sucked at it.

 

[snar3281]

I believe you should consider this post in more detail.

So you want more details on the installer, you have access to a search engine. I have still yet to be shown a 10 year old PC that can run Photoshop CS5 on the requirements I've given you.

What's the relevance of this?

Again, that you are backing up this guy complaining about my iBook running 10.4.

 

[Eidorian]

So you want more details on the installer, you have access to a search engine.

I don't believe you have a copy of CS5 in your hands.

I have still yet to be shown a 10 year old PC that run Photoshop CS5 on the requirements I've given you.


Again, that you are backing up this guy complaining about my iBook running 10.4.

Please install 10.6 and CS5 on your iBook G3.

We already know that Windows 7 is possible on x86 hardware. CS5 is still left unknown.

 

[lucaspkm]

AMD processors is high consume energy and is hot and is not value really value for money because it's consider cheap chip and is not really idea for portable products as the cheap itself will generate lots of heat and now a days the uni-body macs is aluminum which carries heat with it is not very ideal.....

 

[snar3281]

I don't believe you have a copy of CS5 in your hands.

I absolutely love how you're dancing around this. I asked you to find a PC with the given requirements that can run CS5. You have still yet to do this.

Please install 10.6 and CS5 on your iBook G3.

But why would I install 10.6 when 10.4 is the best Mac OS according to you?

 

[Animalk]

Apple has never wavered going for exactly what it wants and needs in terms of components no matter the cost (money or business partnerships).

The only thing that needs to be cleared up is whether Apple is doing this for performance, power efficiency or cost reduction. Perhaps a combination of either?

It is obvious that Intel is bitter about Apple's flat out rejection of Intel's Atom processor. Intel wanted the Atom inside the IPads. MacBook Air was just an exercise in engineering terms.

Apple doesn't care about supporting x86 legacy functionality.

Since the IPad rumours started surfacing, it was immediately clear that Intel was slowly diminishing the exclusivity of its offerings for Apple to a point where Apple receives engineering samples later then HP.

I can't wait to see the outcome of this partnership between Apple and AMD.

 

[Eidorian]

I absolutely love how you're dancing around this. I asked you to find a PC with the given requirements that can run CS5. You have still yet to do this.

I didn't realize that the longevity of hardware relied solely on the ability to install the latest operating system and software.

But not 10.6, right? And not Photoshop CS5. And not....

Technically, I have a 1995 Toshiba Satellite Pro with a 75 MHz Pentium and 48 MiB of RAM (maxed out) that "still runs". It's running dual boot with NT4 and Win95, because it doesn't have (and can't support) the minimum memory needed for Win2K.

Many people replace a computer system because it is no longer capable of running their current applications/workflow as well as a new system. It's not a matter of one day the old system won't power-on and has to be replaced.

Your Ibook G3 can still surf the web - but is it your only computer?

What's wrong with AidenShaw's reply here?

But why would I install 10.6 when 10.4 is the best Mac OS according to you?

Once again I'd like to know how this is relevant.

 

[snar3281]

I didn't realize that the longevity of hardware relied solely on the ability to install the latest operating system and software.

You still haven't given me a PC from 10 years ago that can run Photoshop CS5 with the requirements I've given you. Game. Set. Match.

Is there something wrong with AidenShaw's reply here?

Yeah, the fact that his 10 year old PC can't run Photoshop CS5 either.
EDIT: 5 years old apparently, lol.

Once again I'd like to know how this is relevant.

Once again, the fact that you are backing up the guy complaining about my 10 year old iBook running 10.4(the best Mac OS according to yourself).

 

[Eidorian]

You still haven't given me a PC from 10 years ago that can run Photoshop CS5 with the requirements I've given you. Game. Set. Match.

How have you determined this?

Yeah, the fact that his 10 year old PC can't run Photoshop CS5 either.

Your iBook G3 is much more incapable.

(the best Mac OS according to yourself).

How is this relevant to the discussion? If you really want to continue you this send me an IM. I don't think it's necessary to go this far off topic.

 

[Xtremehkr]

AMD processors is high consume energy and is hot and is not value really value for money because it's consider cheap chip and is not really idea for portable products as the cheap itself will generate lots of heat and now a days the uni-body macs is aluminum which carries heat with it is not very ideal.....

The greatest possibilities don't come from what AMD currently has to offer, the exciting possibilities come out of what Apple and AMD could collaborate on. Apple has the technical knowhow, and AMD has the production skills.

I'd like to see what Apple could do with hardware design.

 

[snar3281]

How have you determined this?

By the fact that you have yet to do so when I requested that you show me it.

Which makes your iBook G3 just as relevant.

I'm sorry? I never said it wasn't. I'm saying that he was trying to make it seem like old PC's are so much more useful than old Mac's. Just go ahead and read his post I first responded to.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

If you seriously want me to repeat the same thing for a third time then that is pretty sad.

Edit(since you seem to have edited your post):

Your iBook G3 is much more incapable.

Oh really? How is it much more incapable?

 

[fuziwuzi]

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.

actually, you're wrong.

if you read the wiki it says

In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement, but Intel canceled the agreement in 1986 and refused to convey technical details of the i386 part. AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration, but Intel disputed this decision. A long legal dispute followed, ending in 1994 when the Supreme Court of California sided with AMD. Subsequent legal disputes centered on whether AMD had legal rights to use derivatives of Intel's microcode. In the face of uncertainty, AMD was forced to develop "clean room" versions of Intel code.

even wiki says they used clean rooming. i assume you know what clean rooming is.. it's a type of reverse engineering that is developed in such a way that.. basically you can get away with it.

wiki on cleaning rooming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

i remember when i met the guy from AST that AMD was in the legal dispute with intel. i just didn't remember the details.

 

[n459umb4786ers]

Maybe Apple is holding on to Core 2 Duo on the lower end Macs until AMD makes a better CPU that's faster and more efficient but not as much as the Core i3 so Apple could sell the lower end Macs at a lower price with a better GPU since AMD is cheaper.

 

[Eidorian]

By the fact that you have yet to do so when I requested that you show me it.

I honestly believe you're overestimating my abilities to get a hold of an unreleased software product, dissect its installer for hardware checks, install it on a 10 year old computer, and then verify that applications are able to run without requiring additional specialized instruction sets beyond just vanilla x86.

To make matters worse it is impossible to install it on a PowerPC based Mac. There is still a chance to do so on a Windows based machine of similar age.

I'm saying that he was trying to make it seem like old PC's are so much more useful than old Mac's.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the post.

If you seriously want me to repeat the same thing for a third time then that is pretty sad.

I'd like to know how my opinion is relevant to running on 10.6 on an iBook G3.

 

[mark28]

As someone who has used AMD chips in PCs for many years i won't have it said that AMD is bad.

They don't have the clout of Intel's latest offerings, but without AMD we'd be stuck with the pentium 4's horrific architecture.

Intel's R&D and Marketing clout are what got them ahead, AMD don't typically have the resources to compete blow-for-blow, but sometimes they can bring out something revolutionary.

No, Intel for years have been using their monopoly and patents to drive AMD out of the market. For example, they have threatened not to supply Intel CPU's if PC builders were also shipping AMD.

Just last year, AMD won the case against Intel about this ******** Intel has been doing over the years and now they are supposedly free to compete against Intel. They are excellent CPU's for the price btw.

The Mac Pro's are going to be amazing if they put AMD in it. You'll be seeing 24-core Mac Pro's with no problem if Apple switches to AMD. Even a 48-core Mac Pro is possible at a descent price.

 

[cmaier]

actually, you're wrong.

if you read the wiki it says




even wiki says they used clean rooming. i assume you know what clean rooming is.. it's a type of reverse engineering that is developed in such a way that.. basically you can get away with it.

wiki on cleaning rooming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

i remember when i met the guy from AST that AMD was in the legal dispute with intel. i just didn't remember the details.

You're hilarious. "Clean rooming" is nearly the exact opposite of reverse engineering. It means the people doing the design have no access to the competitor's intellectual property. In some cases, if copying the actual hardware wouldn't infringe IP, then reverse engineering might be part of a clean room design. But here AMD was not allowed any access to the hardware - that was the point.

No, Intel for years have been using their monopoly and patents to drive AMD out of the market. For example, they have threatened not to supply Intel CPU's if PC builders were also shipping AMD.

Just last year, AMD won the case against Intel about this ******** Intel has been doing over the years and now they are supposedly free to compete against Intel. They are excellent CPU's for the price btw.

The Mac Pro's are going to be amazing if they put AMD in it. You'll be seeing 24-core Mac Pro's with no problem if Apple switches to AMD. Even a 48-core Mac Pro is possible at a descent price.

No they didn't. They settled the case, which is completely different, and AMD got only enough money to keep it afloat for one year.

 

[snar3281]

I honestly believe you're over estimating my abilities to get a hold of an unreleased software product, dissect its installer for hardware checks, install it on a 10 year old computer, and then verify that applications are able to run without requiring additional specialized instruction sets beyond just vanilla x86.

To make matters worse it is impossible to install it on a PowerPC based Mac. There is still a chance to do so on a Windows based machine of similar age.

You forget there is also a resolution requirement and even if you can get it to physically run it won't be usable. Maybe when you manage to pull a rabbit out of your ass and get Photoshop CS5 running on a 10 year old PC so it's workable I'll believe you.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the post.

Ok, what don't you agree with?

I'd like to know how my opinion is relevant to running on 10.6 on an iBook G3.

Because if you think 10.4 is the superior OS how would 10.6 be of any use or matter to back yourself up?

 

[Eidorian]

You forget there is also a resolution requirement and even if you can get it to physically run it won't be usable.

That is true. Is there a need to discuss desktop computers now?

Ok, what don't you agree with?

I believe that both 10 year old PCs and old Macs are equally as useless to me.

The switch to x86 from PowerPC only increases the chance that a user might consider an older PowerPC Mac useless. It's entirely up the user.

Because if you think 10.4 is the superior OS how would 10.6 be of any use or matter to back yourself up?

How am I using my opinion of 10.4. to "back myself up"?

 

[RazHyena]

The only thing I expect is to reduce the price on Apple

Uh...I wouldn't hope for that. If Apple does decide to start using AMD, I'd expect to see more powerful GPU's in their lineup to compensate for the AMD chips.

You forget there is also a resolution requirement and even if you can get it to physically run it won't be usable. Maybe when you manage to pull a rabbit out of your ass and get Photoshop CS5 running on a 10 year old PC so it's workable I'll believe you.


Ok, what don't you agree with?

Because if you think 10.4 is the superior OS how would 10.6 be of any use or matter to back yourself up?

Yeah.....you can stop now.

Welcome to Macrumors.

 

[snar3281]

That is true. Is there a need to discuss desktop computers now?

No, because it still won't run so that's it's workable. Nice job ignoring the rest of what I said.

I believe that both 10 year old PCs and old Macs are equally as useless to me.

The switch to x86 from PowerPC only increases the chance that a user might consider an older PowerPC Mac useless. It's entirely up the user.

Right, which begs the question why the user you have apparently been defending makes it seem as though older Macs are more useless than older PCs when it's up to the user of the machine.

How am I using my opinion of 10.4. to "back myself up"?

By asking me to install 10.6 on my iBook numerous times in this thread.

 

[OrangeSVTguy]

Will Intel go the wave of the PPC? No more support Seems to be the norm as Apple drops support for 3 year old machines... 06' Mac Pro, 2g iPhone, pretty much all 32bit devices probably in 10.7.

Buy new every 3 years.... once your Apple Care is up .

 

[Eidorian]

No, because it still won't run so that's it's workable.

I doubt Windows 7 is very usable on the Pentium II that I linked to earlier.

Right, which begs the question why the user you have apparently been defending makes it seem as though older Macs are more useless than older PCs when it's up to the user of the machine.

I don't see a problem with users running a PowerPC Mac today. Sadly it is an x86 based world and increasingly so.

I'm not AidenShaw either so I can't respond for them.

By asking me to install 10.6 on my iBook numerous times in this thread.

How does my opinion of 10.4 prevent you from installing 10.6 on your iBook G3?

 

[AidenShaw]

Show me a 10 year old PC laptop that will be able to run Windows 7 and Photoshop CS5.

A ten year old Apple laptop would be a G3 Pismo max RAM of 512 MiB and VRAM of 8 MiB.

My point was that no system from 5 to 10 years ago can comfortably run today's applications.

Or, are you trying to claim that a 512 MiB Pismo can run 10.6 and all current applications?

I ask once again, what is the problem/difference between an old Mac still running and an old PC running?

No difference. Neither one is useful. Just don't claim that PCs run for N years, and Apples run for N*2 years. If neither one is useful at that age - it doesn't matter.

 

[snar3281]

I doubt Windows 7 is very usable on the Pentium II that I linked to earlier.

Right, so why bother posting it?

I don't see a problem with users running a PowerPC Mac today. Sadly it is an x86 based world and increasingly so.

I'm not AidenShaw either so I can't respond for them.

Yet you tried to refute my claim by posting an image of some old PC simply RUNNING an OS that is not workable.

How does my opinion of 10.4 prevent you from installing 10.6 on your iBook G3?

It doesn't, but you in particular asking me to install 10.6 is rather peculiar.

Straight from the horses mouth:

Please install 10.6 and CS5 on your iBook G3.

------------------

A ten year old Apple laptop would be a G3 Pismo max RAM of 512 MiB and VRAM of 8 MiB.

My point was that no system from 5 to 10 years ago can comfortably run today's applications.

Or, are you trying to claim that a 512 MiB Pismo can run 10.6 and all current applications?

No, you are trying to claim that a 5 year old PC is more workable than a PowerPC Mac from 5 years ago, which as you just stated, neither of them will be able to run today's applications.

No difference. Neither one is useful. Just don't claim that PCs run for N years, and Apples run for N*2 years. If neither one is useful at that age - it doesn't matter.

I never did. You were the one stating that older PC's are more useful:

HA HA HA...

Any 5 year old Apple has a PowerPC processor. That didn't work out so well, did it?

Ok, how did it not work out well when the PC side can't do anything with their 5 year old machines which again, you just stated were equal?

 

[Eidorian]

Right, so why bother posting it?

How is usability related to the ability of old hardware to boot into a recently released operating system?

You can install 10.5 on a Power Mac G4 (Graphite). It's barely usable, in my opinion, on a Power Mac G4 1.25 GHz.

It doesn't, but you in particular asking me to install 10.6 is rather peculiar.

Straight from the horses mouth:

I thought so. I didn't believe my opinion had a relation to the inability of installing 10.6 on a non-x86 based Mac.