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
Consumers have a distinct interest in having AMD as a viable competitor to Intel. An Intel monopoly would hurt competition and increase prices for everyone.
Apple as well as other PC manufacturers would be doing the consumer a great service by investing in AMD's products (at least on some level), although the success or failure of AMD won't affect Apple's competitiveness in the near term.
Apple has, on the other hand, a definite interest in increasing their market share in the long term. A less expensive AMD chip, as in a MacMini or low-end Imac would allow for a reduction in cost to the consumer for those machines and would be a great way to draw new customers to Apple. Despite their intimations that this is not a goal, it absolutely is, and in fact is a necessity for them. This is business 101. A giant company like Apple that is not growing, is instead, contracting. A smaller Apple, in many ways, gives them less money to spend on research and development - i.e less money to innovate. This hurts their ability to be the Apple that we all have come to admire and reduces their ability to produce the cutting-edge tech products we enjoy.
Apple as well as other PC manufacturers would be doing the consumer a great service by investing in AMD's products (at least on some level), although the success or failure of AMD won't affect Apple's competitiveness in the near term.
Apple has, on the other hand, a definite interest in increasing their market share in the long term. A less expensive AMD chip, as in a MacMini or low-end Imac would allow for a reduction in cost to the consumer for those machines and would be a great way to draw new customers to Apple. Despite their intimations that this is not a goal, it absolutely is, and in fact is a necessity for them. This is business 101. A giant company like Apple that is not growing, is instead, contracting. A smaller Apple, in many ways, gives them less money to spend on research and development - i.e less money to innovate. This hurts their ability to be the Apple that we all have come to admire and reduces their ability to produce the cutting-edge tech products we enjoy.
A real problem for Apple in this is that there are few opportunities to purchase any company of size that would match Apple's growth potential.
Apple has done very well to purchase small tech companies and incorporate that tech and grow the company organically. With Apple running on all cylinder's, those purchases won't even put a dent in Apple's cash.
Light Peak is a collaborative effort:
"Intel is working with the optical component manufacturers to make Light Peak components ready to ship in 2010, and will work with the industry to determine the best way to make this new technology a standard to accelerate its adoption on a plethora of devices including PCs, handheld devices, workstations, consumer electronic devices and more. Light Peak is complementary to existing I/O technologies, as it enables them to run together on a single cable at higher speeds. The Light Peak initiative builds on Intels commitment in working with the industry on existing I/O standards, and provides a path to continued progress into the future."
But also very much a logical next step in fiber optical connections. Nothing to do with Apple [ideas and/or inventions].
Better solution
It seems that a few people are suggesting that Apple buy AMD.
Certainly Apple could afford to buy AMD, but wouldn't it be counterproductive?
Apple, in part, switched to the x86 architecture to have access to a competitive chip market - instead of being stuck with whatever IBM gave them.
Wouldn't a better solution be if Intel simply bought (merged?) with Nvidia?
The main issue Apple has with Intel now is that it is not getting along with Nvidia. This is gumming up Apple's production line. Example: late macbook pros, lack of Intel i3 in 13 inch macbook pro, 27inch Imac issues. All of Apple's recent problems can be traced back to these things.
Maybe a little trist with AMD will get Intel to seriously consider it. I'm not holding my breath, though.
It seems that a few people are suggesting that Apple buy AMD.
Certainly Apple could afford to buy AMD, but wouldn't it be counterproductive?
Apple, in part, switched to the x86 architecture to have access to a competitive chip market - instead of being stuck with whatever IBM gave them.
Wouldn't a better solution be if Intel simply bought (merged?) with Nvidia?
The main issue Apple has with Intel now is that it is not getting along with Nvidia. This is gumming up Apple's production line. Example: late macbook pros, lack of Intel i3 in 13 inch macbook pro, 27inch Imac issues. All of Apple's recent problems can be traced back to these things.
Maybe a little trist with AMD will get Intel to seriously consider it. I'm not holding my breath, though.
What to do with the money then?
It sounds like you've made the best argument for Apple or any other similarly successful tech company not buying AMD, but there's only one point I would bring up in disagreement:
When a company sits on that much money for that long, then that's more wasteful than if they had put that much capital into an underperforming company. Maybe Apple's execs or Jobs himself have tried to stay flexible by keeping all that money for fear of spending the cash and then not having enough cash when "that next great opportunity" comes along. But when you sit on money for than long, in actuality "that next great opportunity" (or more commonly a few great opportunities) have already come and gone without the company realizing it.
I don't know enough about business to work as an exec for Apple, but I have to wonder--when is someone going to make an effective decision with spending part of those cash reserves? That is what executives get those high salaries to do.
It sounds like you've made the best argument for Apple or any other similarly successful tech company not buying AMD, but there's only one point I would bring up in disagreement:
When a company sits on that much money for that long, then that's more wasteful than if they had put that much capital into an underperforming company. Maybe Apple's execs or Jobs himself have tried to stay flexible by keeping all that money for fear of spending the cash and then not having enough cash when "that next great opportunity" comes along. But when you sit on money for than long, in actuality "that next great opportunity" (or more commonly a few great opportunities) have already come and gone without the company realizing it.
I don't know enough about business to work as an exec for Apple, but I have to wonder--when is someone going to make an effective decision with spending part of those cash reserves? That is what executives get those high salaries to do.
Anyone who thinks Apple is going to buy AMD is high.
1) Apple would not be allowed to manufacture x86 processors. The license AMD has to Intel's patents is not transferable to a new entity (whereas Intel gets to keep it's AMD64 license in such a case).
2) AMD's processor design teams (can't comment on the GPU teams) are bloated, inefficient, and weak - the best folks had gone to Sun, PA Semi, Apple, Montalvo, Metaram, and various other startups years ago (which is why AMD has flubbed the lead it had with Athlon 64).
3) Apple would make an enemy of Intel, and AMD does not have a range of processors to fill all of Apple's product lines (even assuming somehow it was still able to make x86 processors).
4) Many of the best remaining employees would leave. Managers would be locked in, but the last thing Apple wants is AMD's managers.
5) AMD would make an enemy of nVidia, meaning it would have to transition all of its machines to AMD+ATI very quickly.
6) AMD has never delivered on its roadmap.
There's no way it's happening.
I can tell you for sure that what's happening is that AMD is making it's regular visit to Apple (just like we used to do for Dell) to try and get them to buy some of our stuff. AMD is offering to make special processors just for Apple, including special packages, and even special die, if Apple will order in sufficient quantity. Just like we offered Sun. And AMD is offering to add instructions or modes for Mac OS, just like we worked with Microsoft on defining AMD64.
1) Apple would not be allowed to manufacture x86 processors. The license AMD has to Intel's patents is not transferable to a new entity (whereas Intel gets to keep it's AMD64 license in such a case).
2) AMD's processor design teams (can't comment on the GPU teams) are bloated, inefficient, and weak - the best folks had gone to Sun, PA Semi, Apple, Montalvo, Metaram, and various other startups years ago (which is why AMD has flubbed the lead it had with Athlon 64).
3) Apple would make an enemy of Intel, and AMD does not have a range of processors to fill all of Apple's product lines (even assuming somehow it was still able to make x86 processors).
4) Many of the best remaining employees would leave. Managers would be locked in, but the last thing Apple wants is AMD's managers.
5) AMD would make an enemy of nVidia, meaning it would have to transition all of its machines to AMD+ATI very quickly.
6) AMD has never delivered on its roadmap.
There's no way it's happening.
I can tell you for sure that what's happening is that AMD is making it's regular visit to Apple (just like we used to do for Dell) to try and get them to buy some of our stuff. AMD is offering to make special processors just for Apple, including special packages, and even special die, if Apple will order in sufficient quantity. Just like we offered Sun. And AMD is offering to add instructions or modes for Mac OS, just like we worked with Microsoft on defining AMD64.
How much it costs is "the real question"? Not for me, buddy. Being that I use my computer to make my living, the real question for me is whether I'll have a faster and more reliable computer. Priorities, people AND remember the old adage:
It takes money to make money.
I'm more inclined to believe Apple is looking at Bulldozer for it's Xserve product line--an area that Intel knows is their smallest market.
This way Apple won't disrupt their partnership with Intel.
Sorry?! Intel's Core 2 Duos are anything but high-end. As are the integrated GPUs in the new MBPs. The high-end MBP and the Mac Pro are the only systems that can be considered high-end and you have to admit that they are overpriced. You could probably build a system with the comparable components of the Mac Pro for half the price. Look over at InsanelyMac, there's many people doing it.
Remember: Most of Apple's consumers are artists, writers, and other people who don't know anything about technology. Apple exploits those people's lack of understanding of technology.
Kudos for this post.
Very insightful (although I hazard the guess that all fanboys and geekbench regulars disagree wholeheartedly).
Those with serious computing needs always make up only a small minority of all users.
This minority's importance is naturally increased by the fact that even the guy who only stitches together the occasional holiday DVD gets an extra satisfaction from "Having the same hardware the professionals use" (which precisely speaking is not 100% true for an iMac owner, but close enough to make it a functional marketing statement.). This is precisely why Apple won't be ditching the pro market. Apple needs the pro's as marketing leverage.
Anyway, this issue is not Apple-specific.
The ultimate paradox of the computing business is that even-though most users would barely feel the day-to-day difference between an i7 and a P4 you still have to sell them overpowered chips, because the sufficient ones are not produced anymore. Furthermore you have to make them feel happy about the fact that they've paid too much to get more than they need.
So what has this to do with Apple's processor choices? I'll get there soon.
I'd guess that very few of you have ever really put the pedal to the metal to find out whether your car really manages the top speed the manufacturer claims. I think it's safe to say that we on average have 33% more top speed than we're allowed to drive and at least 50% more horsepowers that what we're able to make sensible use of.
Still, even if you bought the fastest car ever made, it will not take you from point A to point B in an instant. It will not eliminate the wait.
The same applies to computer hardware. The computer which does not make you wait has not yet been built, and I seriously doubt whether it ever will.
So why do we so massively overspend? Are we just so vain, is it a basic flaw in the affluent human's nature? Probably (I know I am) Thus we're the victims of marketing, because marketing is uniformly targeted at exploiting our vanities.
Why do car/PC manufacturers spend millions on R&D, then millions on marketing, just to get us to buy a new car/PC. Because even though they have to invest massively it still pays off. Or more precisely, it's the only way to achieve/hold on to the competitive advantage, which again is the only way to achieve super-normal returns.
So the craziest part is that it does not really matter how good a product is (if you could measure it objectively) as long as your subjective experience is that it is better than the thing you replaced with it. And this is where marketing comes in again.
First marketing makes you want a product you do not have.
Then you buy it.
Then you see an ad for a product which you have.
And that makes you happy.
And very few do this better than Apple. (And very few do this worse than AMD)
So trust me. If Apple switches to AMD, and you buy one, you will most probably be happy about it. That is how it works.
And the more you are a blind fanboy (which very many are, but very few admit), the more assuredly it will work for you.
My apologies.
Very good point, and very enjoyable post to read, although I don't agree with some part of your assessment.
No it make little sense to spend that type of money to own AMD. Lack of ownership is what keeps Apple nimble. They can move from ATI graphics to Nvidia to Intel. Owning a company/technology means eating your own dogfood even when it tastes worse than your competitors.
I think few people would complain about a $499 AMD based Mac mini with integrated DirectX 11 GPU and quad cores in the summer of 2011.
As stupid and idiotic as that sounds, I have to say for a second after I laughed I didn't think... hmm... Apple does seem to want to ignore its computers now... hmmm....
There are very few glaring ommisions in OS X right now IMO. I'm hoping that WWDC 2010 gives a few "tentpoles" for 10.7 but if not that's ok. I can wait until 2011 to see what the nextgen OS offers.
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (iPhone; Opera Mini/5.0.0176/764; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)
I like the Apple TV idea. Having a CPU that is capable of running Mac OS X 10.4 in a TV box is part of the reason why it costs so much. My DirectTV box can't run a Mac, why should the Apple TV?
gglockner said:
I like the Apple TV idea. Having a CPU that is capable of running Mac OS X 10.4 in a TV box is part of the reason why it costs so much. My DirectTV box can't run a Mac, why should the Apple TV?
Who else but me believes that AMD and Apple are not discussing about the current AMD product line but the upcoming Bobcat and Bulldozer architecture?
Why do so many people think there will be a performance loss or loss of energy efficiency?
Apple will NOT move on to sell Phenom II or Turion II based products.
The rumor, if true, just suggests a very good upcoming product line from AMD in 2011.
Moving to such a product line would be good for any of the involved. Apple, AMD, US
Agreed.
Apple brand is about Build quality (fewer revs more refinements), Power use (notebook components across the line) and Thermal Footprint (no fan noise goal) but has very little to do with raw CPU as GPU acceleration provides a smooth experience. Although unless this new line vastly improves battery life and thermal output I see this rumor as a no go.
Macbook Air/Apple TV would be the test cases as they are supposed to be sluggish. If AMD can make them cool enough to be usable then using AMD chips would be a no brainer (they really should stop shipping Flash with Macbook Air and transition AppleTV to SSD).
Apple has also had an issues recently with product differentiation (Macbook vs Macbook pro) and as AMD does not have the reputation of Intel it could help differentiate lower end Macbook, iMac 21.5" base, Mac mini base and even low end Mac Pro without sacrificing the experience. There would not be anything wrong with slowing any of the low end machines down a tad if they could bring the price down 10% or more.
Most fun is if Apple worked an exclusive on AMD production then PCs would get more expensive.
Can't deliver based on what evidence? They've delivered very nice, very fast processors in the past. They delivered chips that matched and surpassed Pentium III and IV chips in speed and price/performance ratio. They haven't always delivered the fastest chips, but neither has Intel. They compete. The roadmap from AMD indicates some really nice chips on the horizon.
I do (Llano too)
Recently they've been executing better than before, at least in the server lineup.