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
Maybe people will be given the choice of AMD or Intel in their machines. Then again you cannot choose between glossy or non glossy now can you, so probably not.
I just don't see this rumor as that much of a big deal, really.
There's so much more to a typical Apple computer than whatever CPU is inside. Yes, it is an important part of the overall machine, but it is just A PART of the whole.
It's mainly about the OS, and for many people, about the exterior design qualities of the product.
I couldn't care less what type of CPU is in my Mac, as long as the overall machine meets my needs.
I think it's very sensible of Apple to look at all the options for component suppliers, and it seems to me very likely that AMD could have a place in certain products in Apple's range, and Intel in others. It's not like it would mean some massive transition like from PowerPC.
There's so much more to a typical Apple computer than whatever CPU is inside. Yes, it is an important part of the overall machine, but it is just A PART of the whole.
It's mainly about the OS, and for many people, about the exterior design qualities of the product.
I couldn't care less what type of CPU is in my Mac, as long as the overall machine meets my needs.
I think it's very sensible of Apple to look at all the options for component suppliers, and it seems to me very likely that AMD could have a place in certain products in Apple's range, and Intel in others. It's not like it would mean some massive transition like from PowerPC.
Great point. That's such a critical issue in today's world. Getting your horse and buggy from Cupertino to Sunnyvale is certainly the determining factor in who you choose to do business with.
Your post indicates a very, very clear lack of understanding of Apple's business.
First, the ULTIMATE goal is higher profits for Apple, but Apple almost never does that by choosing cheaper components. They choose high end components and build high end systems. AMD chips will be perceived as second best and would not be used unless there was a clear performance advantage to using them. The quote above ("80% of the performance for 60% of the price") would never fit Apple's plan. So they save $100 on a $2,500 system and lose 20% performance - while giving the customer the impression they're using cut-rate parts? Not a chance.
As for 'on par..for less money', that's rarely the case. Yes, there are crappy PCs out there for less, but when you find similar quality, Apple is almost always competitive - but with far, far better reliability and customer satisfaction.
Yet again, the Apple-bashers know more about computers than Jobs and Apple. I really can't understand why Apple just doesn't fire all of its engineers and just come here to ask all the experts. Sheesh.
*chuckle*
19 pages of discussion about a rumour on another site that is renowned for making up stories out of nothing.
What a waste of electrons.
19 pages of discussion about a rumour on another site that is renowned for making up stories out of nothing.
What a waste of electrons.
Yet again, the Apple-bashers know more about computers than Jobs and Apple. I really can't understand why Apple just doesn't fire all of its engineers and just come here to ask all the experts. Sheesh.
No need for the sarcasm. I didn't say the engineers we're stupid. Sheesh.
If you read my post again you'll notice I say sometimes. Saying that an OS structure will last you 20 years is plain stupid, by any CEO or measure. Calling me an Apple basher is like trying to jump over the moon, missing and now hurtling through space, Team Rocket style.
Oh and just as a side note. There are Apple bashers who know the inner working of a computer intimately.
What is Apple really going to do with its cash reserves?
I don't have an MBA, so I need someone to help me understand. Apple has a huge amount of money in cash reserves, so why doesn't Apple just buy AMD and have total control over the development of its processors as it would be favorable to Apple's future products? This would ensure the continuation of the plan to develop multi-core processors to handle graphics without a wasteful standalone graphics processor. I know that for most businesses it's a mistake to get carried away with vertical integration, but for a company like Apple it would make more sense.
I don't have an MBA, so I need someone to help me understand. Apple has a huge amount of money in cash reserves, so why doesn't Apple just buy AMD and have total control over the development of its processors as it would be favorable to Apple's future products? This would ensure the continuation of the plan to develop multi-core processors to handle graphics without a wasteful standalone graphics processor. I know that for most businesses it's a mistake to get carried away with vertical integration, but for a company like Apple it would make more sense.
The only thing that could truly bring AMD back around is getting rid of that stupid Texas(?) research arm that spat out the first K10.
(How could they not catch that virtualization bug?)
Great point. That's such a critical issue in today's world. Getting your horse and buggy from Cupertino to Sunnyvale is certainly the determining factor in who you choose to do business with.
Your post indicates a very, very clear lack of understanding of Apple's business.
First, the ULTIMATE goal is higher profits for Apple, but Apple almost never does that by choosing cheaper components. They choose high end components and build high end systems. AMD chips will be perceived as second best and would not be used unless there was a clear performance advantage to using them. The quote above ("80% of the performance for 60% of the price") would never fit Apple's plan. So they save $100 on a $2,500 system and lose 20% performance - while giving the customer the impression they're using cut-rate parts? Not a chance.
As for 'on par..for less money', that's rarely the case. Yes, there are crappy PCs out there for less, but when you find similar quality, Apple is almost always competitive - but with far, far better reliability and customer satisfaction.
Yet again, the Apple-bashers know more about computers than Jobs and Apple. I really can't understand why Apple just doesn't fire all of its engineers and just come here to ask all the experts. Sheesh.
The Core 2 Duo isn't really high end anymore. Sorry
The Core i5 is MIDRANGE according to Intel. The i7 is high end, but starts at $2199 for that MBP. A PC can get that same Core i7 arrendale CPU for under 1K. So while the i7 is high end. Its in an apple laptop thats WAY OVER PRICED.
Nice try though
I'm not trying to endorse Dell. I actually think their build quality isn't as good as the higher end PCs like Sony Vaio's.
But I think it just goes to show that PCs easily last 6-8 years if you know what you are doing (and I'm sure Macs do too).
Here's how... http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/191015261/
P.S: One of the aforementioned Laptops I had, I accidently knocked off the balcony of my 2nd floor apartment about an year ago (it was old so I wasn't very careful with it). All it got was a crack in the exterior plastic, but everything else still runs perfectly, even the LCD is still perfect and like I said, I later installed Windows 7 on it and continue to use it as a backup in my bedroom.
I don't know what these people who claim PCs don't last are doing to their computers but I doubt it involved a drop from a 2 story drop!
If Apple did buy AMD, then AMD would probably be in Macintosh ONLY. These leaves Intel in the pc market... alone. While I love Intel, and hate AMD (IMO they are cheap low cost, underperforming CPUs. they generate a lot of heat and not the best performance) Some people DON'T like Intel, and favor AMD. So intel is already monolipizing the Pc industry, then AMD would only be in Macs making it worse. Apple wouldn't want its subsidiary making chips for its competitor
I'm not trying to endorse Dell. I actually think their build quality isn't as good as the higher end PCs like Sony Vaio's.
But I think it just goes to show that PCs easily last 6-8 years if you know what you are doing (and I'm sure Macs do too).
Here's how... http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/191015261/
P.S: One of the aforementioned Laptops I had, I accidently knocked off the balcony of my 2nd floor apartment about an year ago (it was old so I wasn't very careful with it). All it got was a crack in the exterior plastic, but everything else still runs perfectly, even the LCD is still perfect and like I said, I later installed Windows 7 on it and continue to use it as a backup in my bedroom.
I agree with you too. I prefer Dell's Latitude series because they seems built stronger than the cheap fugly looking Inspiron line. The Latitude lineup is slightly more expensive, but powerful enough. I do think some of these laptops that you find at best buy will fail soon enough. It includes some dells. They all cost cheap, and look extremely cheap when you look at them. They have cheap glossy scrachable plastic just like Apple 1K laptop.
If apple decides to try putting AMD chips in their computers, then I think they should start off with the xServe line. Apple can lower their server prices, increase sales, and have the market test out the transition. My IT guys don't care if their servers have AMD chips or even prefer it.
For all those who argued with me that an ipad is *not* a computer. There is an app for that....
Stranded Norway President runs his country by ipad, while stuck in New York; due to flights to Europe being grounded, thanks to the Iceland Volcano.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/04/16/volcano.ash.norway.ipad/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Stranded Norway President runs his country by ipad, while stuck in New York; due to flights to Europe being grounded, thanks to the Iceland Volcano.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/04/16/volcano.ash.norway.ipad/index.html?hpt=Sbin
It is interesting to think about this, a combo of ATi/AMD could probably work for the Macintosh line of Apple computers but Intel are just too good to let go of, the Core family of CPUs are practically the best thing going right now and have been for quite some time...Not to say AMD can't ever match them but I haven't seen anything from them that makes me think, "Wow, that's innovative".
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Intel the one developing Light Peak?
Yes, I could see Apple's troubles with Intel forcing their integrated GPUs with their iX CPUs and how it's making things difficult with nVIDIA and of course the overwhelming demand coupled with low supply that could cause delays on new product launches, but Intel is still the way to go.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Intel the one developing Light Peak?
Yes, I could see Apple's troubles with Intel forcing their integrated GPUs with their iX CPUs and how it's making things difficult with nVIDIA and of course the overwhelming demand coupled with low supply that could cause delays on new product launches, but Intel is still the way to go.
So, Apple wants a choice because their exclusive supplier can't always deliver and the non-competitve arrangement is more costly.
Sort of like what we face with AT&T, eh?
Sort of like what we face with AT&T, eh?
435 people voted this negative?
Nowadays in these forums when an article is voted down, it almost a guarantee it's good news...
It's actually great news, and to those 435 google llano.
Nowadays in these forums when an article is voted down, it almost a guarantee it's good news...
It's actually great news, and to those 435 google llano.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lans_to_Initiate_Production_in_Late_2010.html
Rumored Llano TDPs:
High-end (2/3/4 core + GPU): 35-59 W
Mainstream (2/4 cores + GPU): 30 W
Low-power (2 cores + GPU): 20 W
Core 2/i + GPU TDPs:
Core 2 + 9600M: 25/35 W + 23 W = 48/58 W
Clarksfield (4 cores): 45 W (regular), 55 W (Extreme)
Arrandale (2 cores + GPU): 35 W (regular), 25 W (LV), 18 W (ULV)
Core 2 + 9400M/320M: 25 W + 12?* W = ~37 W
Core 2 LV + 9400M/320M: 17 W + 12?* W = ~29 W
Arrandale + 330M: ~25 [35 - ~10] W + 23 W = ~48 W
Sandy Bridge-MB 2-core: 20 W
Sandy Bridge-MB 4-core: 45 W
Looks very good for the MacBook Air. It's 2 cores and an integrated GPU on two chips, 2 (better) cores and a worse integrated GPU on one chip, or 4 weaker cores + a better integrated GPU on one chip. The last option seems the most appealing. Depending on how good Llano's GPU is, the MacBook Pro could just use the Llano GPU and not have a discrete GPU at all.
* I don't know the 320M's TDP, that value is the TDP of the 9400M it replaced.
Oh and the platform also supports USB 3.0.
Rumored Llano TDPs:
High-end (2/3/4 core + GPU): 35-59 W
Mainstream (2/4 cores + GPU): 30 W
Low-power (2 cores + GPU): 20 W
Core 2/i + GPU TDPs:
Core 2 + 9600M: 25/35 W + 23 W = 48/58 W
Clarksfield (4 cores): 45 W (regular), 55 W (Extreme)
Arrandale (2 cores + GPU): 35 W (regular), 25 W (LV), 18 W (ULV)
Core 2 + 9400M/320M: 25 W + 12?* W = ~37 W
Core 2 LV + 9400M/320M: 17 W + 12?* W = ~29 W
Arrandale + 330M: ~25 [35 - ~10] W + 23 W = ~48 W
Sandy Bridge-MB 2-core: 20 W
Sandy Bridge-MB 4-core: 45 W
Looks very good for the MacBook Air. It's 2 cores and an integrated GPU on two chips, 2 (better) cores and a worse integrated GPU on one chip, or 4 weaker cores + a better integrated GPU on one chip. The last option seems the most appealing. Depending on how good Llano's GPU is, the MacBook Pro could just use the Llano GPU and not have a discrete GPU at all.
* I don't know the 320M's TDP, that value is the TDP of the 9400M it replaced.
Oh and the platform also supports USB 3.0.
I too am not sure I would agree with apple buying AMD, mostly because it would be an unnecessary cost and risk for Apple. Purchase or not, I think AMD would welcome the business and would be more willing to work with Apple. Then again, Apple injecting capital into AMD (or even engineers) may help the company become more competitive. Certainly Intel increasing its dominance is not a good thing for innovation.
However, I disagree that if Apple struck a heavy deal or even bought AMD that AMD would stop making PC chips. Business-wise this would not make sense. The PC market will always exist, some people will never buy an Apple, and Steve Jobs has said as much. So, why not tap some of the market that you would otherwise never receive? This can also be a subtle form of advertising: See this great product, we have it too plus other great features you can't get. There is a reason why Microsoft publishes software for the Mac. Microsoft has dedicated teams to work with Apple and do it all the time.
Yes Intel is developing Light Peak, but I believe Apple was the one that brought the idea to Intel.
Seems like things have been quiet with AMD's, ATI cards being the exception. If I had to "guess", I'd say AMD is picking apart the Radeon GPU's, architecture looking for ways to integrate a superior (or competitive) line of processors.
I wonder what would happen if:
1. Intel combines Core with their HD GMA's.
2. AMD combines their CPU with their Radeon HD 5970's.
3. Intel acquires NVidia, and combines Cores with Fermi's.
4. Apple acquires AMD w/ATI, and merges their A4 team to do the AMD CPU+ Radeon HD 5970 combination.
Fun to think about - hehe
I think competition is healthy, and though I have always stuck with Intel's, I really want to see AMD do something to level the playing field. Honestly, I was really hoping the new MBP's would have had ATI Radeon HD 5870's in them, even though I've been using NVidia cards exclusively for 8 years. Since I picked up an iMac with an ATI card in it, I've had nothing but great experiences with it.
The question is not: Does Apple have enough money to buy AMD? The question is: Would buying AMD give Apple enough advantages to justify the purchase price?
Apple doesn't rely on the processors in its computers to be competitive. Right now, Apple can get exactly the same processors as everyone else, at the same price. If Intel builds something that Apple doesn't like, tough for Apple, but tough for Dell, HP, Acer and everybody else as well. So it doesn't matter; Apple is exactly as competitive whether Intel makes products that Apple likes or not.
AMDs enterprise value (that is market caps, minus cash, plus debt) is about $8.6bn. Do you seriously think Apple could get $8.6bn worth of value out of buying AMD?