Apple Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?

[daxomni]

Do you know what I have running in my 6 year old desk top?

What does that have to do with what you're writing here and now, in 2010? I have a six year old Intel chip in a desktop as well. What does that change about my comments here and now? Absolutely nothing.

As Cmair pointed out AMD blew its lead by not expanding on it. They sat on that edge while intel was a sleeping gaint. Problem was the Athlon chips woke Intel up and they took back their performance edge. AMD has never caught back up.

Cmaier has claimed that AMD will never succeed and has implied that their workforce will forever be filled with supposedly intelligent but also exceptionally lazy employees who despise their employer but still can't be bothered to find other jobs. Cmaier would also presumably be one of the last people to acknowledge, let alone cheer on, any of AMD's future successes. If you agree with cmaier's view of AMD that's fine, but know that you have completely contradicted yourself in the process. Nobody who understands the amount of time, money, and complexity involved would expect AMD to routinely eclipse the best efforts of a massive industrial giant like Intel.

And they lose money on every one they sell

Source?

 

[cmaier]

Source?

The source is me. I know the average ASP required for a profit (as does every employee of CMD and TMD - it was a regularly repeated figure that guided everything we tried to do).

As to your other comment about me, AMD does have three decent employees. They are waiting for their bonuses to kick in, and then unless they get new lock-ins that will be all she wrote.

 

[Eidorian]

And they lose money on every one they sell

I find that hard to believe since they supply the processor, northbridge, and southbridge.

I'lll admit they don't have Intel's margins but they've a strangle hold on the platform for longer than Intel.

 

[cmaier]

I find that hard to believe since they supply the processor, northbridge, and southbridge.

I'lll admit they don't have Intel's margins but they've a strangle hold on the platform for longer than Intel.

There's a reason they don't make a profit - they don't sell the chips for more than the cost of making them. Even last quarter's supposed profit was due to a one-time transaction involving the spin-off of Global Foundries.

If they weren't losing money on each one sold, they'd make a profit.

 

[Eidorian]

There's a reason they don't make a profit - they don't sell the chips for more than the cost of making them.

Do you have any proof of this?

Keep in mind that all of these mobile derivatives are also based off of Athlon II.

 

[cmaier]

Do you have any proof of this?

Keep in mind that all of these mobile derivatives are also based off of Athlon II.

I must be missing something. What proof are you asking for? You don't believe that they've had no ongoing profit in any quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006? Or do you think that the cpus make money and the gpus don't? Where do you think the losses come from, if not for the fact that they lose money on each chip sold?

I'm also not sure what your "keep in mind" means? They still had to do the design work (using 300 engineers). They still must pay for each wafer start at global foundries, and then pay to test and package each chip.

 

[Eidorian]

I must be missing something. What proof are you asking for? You don't believe that they've had no ongoing profit in any quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006? Or do you think that the cpus make money and the gpus don't? Where do you think the losses come from, if not for the fact that they lose money on each chip sold?

I don't know where the losses come from either.

I'm also not sure what your "keep in mind" means? They still had to do the design work (using 300 engineers). They still must pay for each wafer start at global foundries, and then pay to test and package each chip.

Die size, yields, and harvest of Propus and Regor vs. Deneb.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I must be missing something. What proof are you asking for? You don't believe that they've had no ongoing profit in any quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006? Or do you think that the cpus make money and the gpus don't? Where do you think the losses come from, if not for the fact that they lose money on each chip sold?

I'm also not sure what your "keep in mind" means? They still had to do the design work (using 300 engineers). They still must pay for each wafer start at global foundries, and then pay to test and package each chip.

They're still paying off debt. Most of the income would be used to pay it off.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I read threw that and it looks like those chips are yet again all low end CPU in the mobile space. AMD is not offering anything in the higher end of the market so Intel will still be making higher quality stuff.

Sounds like a PERFECT fit for Apple given their choice of low power computing (although typically this has been more on the GPU side in mobile...er...oh wait the iMacs are mostly MOBILE chips too . )

Me, I like OSX (and especially the current lack of viruses and spyware compared to Windows machines with better software support than Linux), but Apple's hardware really sucks these days, especially for the dollar per computing ounce (well it always kind of did, but at least the old PowerMacs had expandability and were priced in the $1500-2500 range instead of the Mac Pro $2400-10,000 range (and you need at least $4000+ before you get something that can compete with a $1200 PC for useless pursuits like "gaming" since the standard Mac Pro comes with a POS GPU). I'd build a nice Hackintosh at this point and throw OSX and Windows7 on it and use whatever worked best and laugh at saving $3000 compared to a comparably equipped Mac Pro. Screw Apple's prices and lack of mid-range power options. Refusing to pay their inflated prices for low-powered Chinese built mush is the only way to force them to compete since they sue anyone who tries to sell reasonably priced clone hardware to run OSX on and moronic judges back them up instead of putting them where they belong. But I'm sure the fan-boys will keep those prices up there forever since Apple would rather cater to 20 million fan-boys at total rip-off prices and power levels than 6 BILLION normal computing users that expect some bang for their buck. Apple has a long tradition of milking their core base for every last dollar. I'm not sure how they get "fan-boys" from getting milked, but they seem to love them for ripping them off so go figure.

 

[stingerman]

They're still paying off debt. Most of the income would be used to pay it off.

In 2009 they got rid of quite a bit of their debt, about 1.5 billion and significantly increased their cash position. They also reduced their operating expenses by 500 Million and this with their 2009 Global Foundries (GF) business consolidated on the same statements. In 2010, GF will no longer be consolidated, their debt expenses and interest is significantly reduced, their R&D expenses significantly reduced, all while they are experiencing significant demand increase. Since the process they are running on is mature and yields are very good, they should continue to be cash flow positive, even without an Intel payout. I personally don't care for net income numbers and stick to cash flow, which is very strong.

 

[applesupergeek]

In 2009 they got rid of quite a bit of their debt, about 1.5 billion and significantly increased their cash position. They also reduced their operating expenses by 500 Million and this with their 2009 Global Foundries (GF) business consolidated on the same statements. In 2010, GF will no longer be consolidated, their debt expenses and interest is significantly reduced, their R&D expenses significantly reduced, all while they are experiencing significant demand increase. Since the process they are running on is mature and yields are very good, they should continue to be cash flow positive, even without an Intel payout. I personally don't care for net income numbers and stick to cash flow, which is very strong.

At last a good post, after the barrage of all that cmaier vindictive garbage who should be taking his agenda to a therapist instead of these forums.

 

[ataboc]

stick to intel.

 

[applesupergeek]

stick to intel.

yeah well, we 'll take your word for it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

At last a good post, after the barrage of all that cmaier vindictive garbage who should be taking his agenda to a therapist instead of these forums.

I used to think some of that as well but he is right on some things.

AMD has not been making anything but low end budget CPU for a years now. They worked hard to get the Athlon line going but failed to move on to the next generation.

Intel finally stop shoving the crappy P4 architecture down on us and moved back to the better P3 base design. The Pentimium M was I think the changing moment. Intel got that out and they went back to that set up and really started cranking stuff out.

AMD had an edge for a few years but lost it when intel CoreDuo hit the market. From that point on AMD has been on the back burner getting its ass handed to them.

I know when I build my next desktop I will look at AMD for my CPU as they make really great ones in that budge range and the crap intel has pulled still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Will I considered AMD for my laptop... HELL NO. AMD history has shown that their mobiles chips suck. AMD has not had a good mobile chip compared to intel for as long as I can remember. Even during the Athlon hey days they still just were not up to that level.

 

[stingerman]

I used to think some of that as well but he is right on some things.

AMD has not been making anything but low end budget CPU for a years now. They worked hard to get the Athlon line going but failed to move on to the next generation.

This simply isn't true. Look at the performance charts and AMD is in all tiers, their real problem has been performance / Watt which Apple is mainly concerned about for their notebooks. This has more to do with the path they took to get to the smaller processes. Whereas, Intel hit a hard wall with the Pentium 4 micro-architecture, they were saved by the Pentium M which had legs on it and fortunately for them was just in time for the performance / watt change that occurred after the megahertz myth was widely accepted as false.

AMD's real setback was the TLB bug the killed their high-end market without a compelling notebook solution to make up for it, they've been seriously hurting.

Intel finally stop shoving the crappy P4 architecture down on us and moved back to the better P3 base design. The Pentimium M was I think the changing moment. Intel got that out and they went back to that set up and really started cranking stuff out.

This is actually pretty scary, you must admit. Without that Pentium M group, Intel would have been seriously screwed. You have to ask yourself, how could they have not been better prepared for the end of the P4 micro-architecture. They were drunk on their own marketing juice. Luck as it was turned to their favor.

I know when I build my next desktop I will look at AMD for my CPU as they make really great ones in that budge range and the crap intel has pulled still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well for a desktop, performance /$ is what counts. So now AMD is looking really good, even for the real high-end gamer, now that they eliminated their 4GHz barrier, as well as the cold flu. You really can't get the same bang for the buck and can use the money saved on a higher end GPU or two!

Will I considered AMD for my laptop... HELL NO. AMD history has shown that their mobiles chips suck. AMD has not had a good mobile chip compared to intel for as long as I can remember. Even during the Athlon hey days they still just were not up to that level.

It depends, laptops from HP and Dell, sure they have the larger form factor to deal with the heat and the overall and the overall system power usage can be made up for by using AMD/ATI chipset with better GPU than anything Intel can give you. The Battery difference appears to be 5 hours for AMD, 6 for Intel. but AMD's will give you a better GPU...

As far as AMDs in Apple notebooks now? I'd say no, not this generation, the performance/w is simply not there yet for Apple's slimmer and more elegant designs. That goes for the iMac and Mac Mini too, the the 27" iMac may be an exception. However, it's May 2010 and AMD has already started handing out their Fusion samples and the first notebooks will appear early 2011. I think the Fusion APU is a very compelling story. And AMD has been working on it for some time using a proven core. Global Foundries/Chartered has already proven itself on the various process technologies they need to get it out the door. So I think the risk is a lot lower this time around and the APU solution is right in line with Apple's notebook/imac needs.

 

[justlooking]

Nice post, very informative, thx. Bulldozer sounds exciting and spot on. I like the offloading of Integer SIMD onto the integer units as well as simultaneous branch execution. Throw in a OpenCL on the integrated chipset and this could be perfect for Apple considering Intels efforts to cripple GPGPU.

I hear that bulldozer will hit 5GHz+, anyone else hear anything?

Do you mean this?

 

[Eidorian]

This simply isn't true. Look at the performance charts and AMD is in all tiers, their real problem has been performance / Watt which Apple is mainly concerned about for their notebooks. This has more to do with the path they took to get to the smaller processes. Whereas, Intel hit a hard wall with the Pentium 4 micro-architecture, they were saved by the Pentium M which had legs on it and fortunately for them was just in time for the performance / watt change that occurred after the megahertz myth was widely accepted as false.

AMD's real setback was the TLB bug the killed their high-end market without a compelling notebook solution to make up for it, they've been seriously hurting.

I don't remember a time where AMD was competitive in the mobile space. It was interesting to see Athlon 64 mobile parts but x86-64 but that wasn't much to show against Pentium-M (Dothan) and later Core Duo.

Sadly, I don't remember the source for this bit of information but I've heard that 65nm just wasn't the time for a monolithic quad core processor but AMD's partners pushed them hard to release Phenom as such.

Underwhelming performance and power consumption compared to Athlon 64 and Core Duo/Core 2 just made matters worse. AMD was effectively fighting back with price drops and optimized Athlon 64 mobile processors.

 

[xgman]

Well for a desktop, performance /$ is what counts. So now AMD is looking really good, even for the real high-end gamer.

I really don't mean to offend you, but this is just utter nonsense. Check in with such sites as Xtreme, Overclockers, HardOCP and get back to us.

 

[stingerman]

I really don't mean to offend you, but this is just utter nonsense. Check in with such sites as Xtreme, Overclockers, HardOCP and get back to us.

No offense, my point is that for the cost, you can configure a pretty high-end system with more money spent on the GPU resources and for that matter RAM. Intel currently has much faster CPUs at the high-end but I don't think it's worth it, I'd rather spend the money on the whole system and not let the CPU kill my budget.

 

[navast]

bring it on...

 

[TSE]

I personally think that AMD mobile processors aren't as good as Intel, but there are specific markets where AMD processors in laptops are superior to their counterparts.

The AMD "Neo" line is superior to Intel's "CULV" line for the ultraportable category for example...

What would you rather have, an AMD Dual Core Neo processor with ATI Radeon 3200HD Graphics for ~$500 or the low end Intel Dual Core CULV processor with Intel Graphics for ~$600? That's the choice I encountered while shopping for my laptop in October and I chose the AMD. My only concern was the battery life wouldn't be enough but I still get 4.5-5 hours which is great.

The Neo II line was just released and it looks like it is better than the original Neo platform in every category... better battery life, less energy, faster, and it includes superior graphics. All this while Intel's new CULV "i" processors really aren't that much better than the CULV "Core 2 Duo" processors.

My point is, AMD needs to start sticking it to Intel in battles where they have a shot at, than grow from there.

 

[NJL6705]

Stick With Intel! Please!

I'm just getting a MacBook Pro after a solid eight years with my eMac. Alot of my apps are PPC native and it's been a pain finding all the updates and everything. I also have collected alot of Intel native apps for when I get my MBP and I don't want to go through this again! Just stick with Intel, PLEASE!

P.S. Should I even get a MBP, or wait and see how this plays out?

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm just getting a MacBook Pro after a solid eight years with my eMac. Alot of my apps are PPC native and it's been a pain finding all the updates and everything. I also have collected alot of Intel native apps for when I get my MBP and I don't want to go through this again! Just stick with Intel, PLEASE!

P.S. Should I even get a MBP, or wait and see how this plays out?

Don't worry - Intel and AMD CPUs are virtually identical as seen by user software. Even where they differ (for example support for different levels of SSE) software can check for the CPU capabilities and do the "right thing" (obvious, since different Intel CPUs differ on SSE levels).

Other differences are never seen by application software - for example power management APIs in the OS abstract the hardware capabilities. The application code calls a generalized power management function, and the OS code maps it to the closest feature available in the hardware.

The real issue is that in general Intel CPUs hold the crown for performance and performance per watt, and AMD has the edge in price-performance.
____________

But, don't worry about your applications not running if Apple starts to use AMD CPUs in some budget models.

Wait, "budget Apple" is an oxymoron.

 

[daxomni]

P.S. Should I even get a MBP, or wait and see how this plays out?

I don't think you should buy anything you can't be bothered to research first.

 

[applesupergeek]

I personally think that AMD mobile processors aren't as good as Intel, but there are specific markets where AMD processors in laptops are superior to their counterparts.

The AMD "Neo" line is superior to Intel's "CULV" line for the ultraportable category for example...

What would you rather have, an AMD Dual Core Neo processor with ATI Radeon 3200HD Graphics for ~$500 or the low end Intel Dual Core CULV processor with Intel Graphics for ~$600? That's the choice I encountered while shopping for my laptop in October and I chose the AMD. My only concern was the battery life wouldn't be enough but I still get 4.5-5 hours which is great.

The Neo II line was just released and it looks like it is better than the original Neo platform in every category... better battery life, less energy, faster, and it includes superior graphics. All this while Intel's new CULV "i" processors really aren't that much better than the CULV "Core 2 Duo" processors.

My point is, AMD needs to start sticking it to Intel in battles where they have a shot at, than grow from there.

Good, and often missed points. And an overall great post by stingerman.