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
how do you figure? Wouldn't 1)the license transfer? & 2)with all the antitrust issues and rulings against Intel, do you really think they would be allowed to restrict the license?
I honestly know little to nothing about this stuff, so I'm honestly asking...i work finance/operations for a tech company, so I hear a lot, but understand less
The license is restricted - no transferring.
i'd happily buy an AMD based machine running OSX if a significant portion of the savings were passed on to customers
And don't fool yourself into thinking that Apple has turned its back completely on PPC chipsets as well...
Everything is STILL in place, even though 10.6 was Intel-only. Apple could implement UB back into the fold in a heart beat and have POWER7 chips smoking away in a reborn PowerMac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7
Not too shabby on the specs...
4/6/8 cores per chip available
Running 3.0-4.14 GHz
45nm chips
I'm also sure that I could heat my house off of one of these chips by running Final Cut Pro... but hey! That would be AWESOME!
Everything is STILL in place, even though 10.6 was Intel-only. Apple could implement UB back into the fold in a heart beat and have POWER7 chips smoking away in a reborn PowerMac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7
Not too shabby on the specs...
4/6/8 cores per chip available
Running 3.0-4.14 GHz
45nm chips
I'm also sure that I could heat my house off of one of these chips by running Final Cut Pro... but hey! That would be AWESOME!
New processor
Looks to me like Apple are looking to work on a processor for it's Mac line, the A4 chip in the iPad is custom built, so why not the Mac processors?? AMD have the facilities to make chips and maybe a bit of R+D money/support from Apple would make a great partnership down the road. Waiting for the next Intel release before a new Mac launch must be annoying for Apple given the recent licensing issues.A custom chip they have a say in is much more appropriate for a company of Apple's standing.
Looks to me like Apple are looking to work on a processor for it's Mac line, the A4 chip in the iPad is custom built, so why not the Mac processors?? AMD have the facilities to make chips and maybe a bit of R+D money/support from Apple would make a great partnership down the road. Waiting for the next Intel release before a new Mac launch must be annoying for Apple given the recent licensing issues.A custom chip they have a say in is much more appropriate for a company of Apple's standing.
I think this is Apple trying to leverage Intel off their strong arm tactics to force everyone to use the Intel IGP. Intel had to expect some backlash from the move to basically lock everyone else out of the chipset site of things.
If Apple saves any money by switching to AMD I doubt much of that savings will transfer to the consumer.
If Apple saves any money by switching to AMD I doubt much of that savings will transfer to the consumer.
First, it could be GPU-only negotiations. Just because it's AMD doesn't mean that it's CPUs. Second, I'm not sure what they could get out of this except lower prices (for slightly lower performance). However, they do get a lot of favors from Intel, which I imagine may stop.
Sure, AMD could offer them a completely integrated solution, but they seem to be fine with adding discrete graphics even to the 13" MBP.
Apple buying AMD is ludicrous for many reasons. They would then be relying on themselves to not fall behind the performance curve rather than using common technology which assures that they can't. Besides, Apple doesn't make the A4, they license common technology to develop it. Getting to the point where you develop your own CPU or GPU is introducing a bad single-point failure possibility.
Sure, AMD could offer them a completely integrated solution, but they seem to be fine with adding discrete graphics even to the 13" MBP.
Apple buying AMD is ludicrous for many reasons. They would then be relying on themselves to not fall behind the performance curve rather than using common technology which assures that they can't. Besides, Apple doesn't make the A4, they license common technology to develop it. Getting to the point where you develop your own CPU or GPU is introducing a bad single-point failure possibility.
God, I hope not. AMD processors are no longer in the same league as Intels. Maybe for the lowest end macs if any.
This is future AMD products we are talking about here. With the success of the i7,i5, & i3 you don't think that and would be developing a response?
Hell it has been a while since they came out I am surprised that and hasn't released any concrete information about this.
Also on a budget, AMD chips have always been bang for your buck. If the future of AMD holds inexpensive chips that have performance competitive with intels i7 (ect) AND the end consumers see cheaper macs AND AMD builds graphics sets that are powerful but use minimal power?
There would be absolutely no reason for any of us to complain... Even if AMD only hits 2 out of the 3.
Let us see how this plays out. I am rooting for amd.
My guess would be 'no'. Apple has a series of price points and the price points tend to stay very stable.
If AMD were able to deliver more performance for the same price, it might mean more powerful systems, but I don't see Apple lowering their price points solely on the basis of different components.
Ultimately, the way Apple works is to set their targets (i.e, "we want a low end AIO with 21.5" screen and a $1200 price point and a high end system with a 27" screen and a $1800 price point but with the option to add upgrades"). They then look at sourcing to see how much computer they can offer for those price points. If AMD can offer significantly better price/performance, tApple would usually choose to offer a faster computer at the same price rather than the same speed computer at a lower price.
One of the problems would be in the laptop line which is a growing portion of total sales. I haven't followed it, but my understanding is that Intel has a performance/watt advantage.
Just a guess, though, based on years of watching how Apple works.
Because today's performance is real and tomorrow is vapor? And because Intel also has improved chips on the horizon?
Let the Intel hate begin
Why? Most Mac users don't care what CPU is in their system. Even the PPC-Intel transition went pretty smoothly without widespread rebellion - even though it required completely new software. Switching to AMD would probably not require new software, or maybe a minor tweak.
Could be. If there's any truth to the AMD discussion rumor at all.
Because apparently Intel won't allow it. The report seems to suggest that Apple was not too happy having to use the Intel HD Graphics chip with the new MacBooks.
If one predicts the future by looking at the past, using AMD CPUs would be a losing proposition.
AMD has been behind Intel for almost four years. And that's on the desktop. They've never been close with mobile processors. In fact their mobile processors have a reputation for being pigs.
Apple makes premium products. Intel is unlikely to lose the performance race to AMD for a long long time. They learned their lessons from the Pentium 4 mess.
They certainly aren't, but I can't imagine Apple using inferior chips for their top-of-the-line products. If they use anything from AMD it will be something that fits appropriately into a specific product line.God, I hope not. AMD processors are no longer in the same league as Intels. Maybe for the lowest end macs if any.
We'll see if anything comes out of it, but in any case, it simply makes sense for Apple to have a back up plan. The Intel and nVidia situation is certainly not helping, and the fact that Apple can get both a CPU and a GPU from one partner may make a good sense from technological, as well as financial standpoint.
So what would this mean if it was true?
Would it be the same as the big shift away from PowerPC, would it mean at some point in the next few years an Apple OS will come out AMD only with machines barely over 4 years old being left behind?
Would it be the same as the big shift away from PowerPC, would it mean at some point in the next few years an Apple OS will come out AMD only with machines barely over 4 years old being left behind?
People shouldnt kid themselves, the prices wont go down, the prices will remain the same while providing worse performance. With the margins Apple makes it would be unacceptable to get an AMD processor in a mac. Apple doesnt look for prices to match their computers like Dell, they come up prices first and then try to figure out what kind of computer they can fit into that price.
OSX already works with AMD processors via hackintosh drivers.So what would this mean if it was true?
Would it be the same as the big shift away from PowerPC, would it mean at some point in the next few years an Apple OS will come out AMD only with machines barely over 4 years old being left behind?
Haven't we heard for years the netbook argument that for most customers they only use a computer for email, watching video and so on. Granted this argument was to excuse the use of the Atom.
I can see where an ultra cheap part, with much better performance than an Atom chip, could be utilized by Apple on the Mac Mini, the entry level iMac, and on the Macbooks.
This would give even more product separation than just MHz, or a different intel iX part of which the typical consumer can't tell the difference between anyway. Just look how many posts here on MR about what the differences are between the i3, i5 and the i7. Intel for the pro equipment and AMD for the consumer stuff.
I can see where an ultra cheap part, with much better performance than an Atom chip, could be utilized by Apple on the Mac Mini, the entry level iMac, and on the Macbooks.
This would give even more product separation than just MHz, or a different intel iX part of which the typical consumer can't tell the difference between anyway. Just look how many posts here on MR about what the differences are between the i3, i5 and the i7. Intel for the pro equipment and AMD for the consumer stuff.
That what I was thinking too - but is Apple just bluffing with this AMD deal to force Intel to ease up on that restriction? If so, how effective a bluff is it if AMD chips are lagging behind Intel's offerings? Apple obviously isn't switching if Intels CPUs are better.
Could AMD be a credible threat to Intel if Apple invested heavily in them? (Or: would Intel be worried if Apple threatened to invest heavily in AMD's R&D?)
With the historic Steve Jobs attention to detail and not shipping low quality products, does anyone think Apple would use AMD if it was a second rate solution?
If that's the case, then I'd like to give you a belated thanks for designing a great product, which you can feel free to pass on to your former teammates.
Several years ago, I built a PC for myself around an AMD Athlon 64-- the 3500+ Clawhammer, specifically. I was very impressed by its performance in comparison to my Pentium 4 laptop; it was the only PC I owned that ran iTunes for Windows satisfactorily. It still runs very well to this day, in fact.