Apple Considering Adopting AMD Processors for Upcoming Macs?

[Yamcha]

Typical .. Mac users are not hardware savvy.. AMD makes great processors and the latest Phenom II processor line uses 45NM which means less heat.. You guys have been brainwashed by Intel far too much.. The Phenom II's beat Intel's Core 2 Quad line hands down, now yeah the new Core i5's (Quad Core) are a faster, but they also have a hefty price..

Core i5 750 (2.66GHZ Quad Core) - RETAILS: $240(CANADIAN)
AMD Athlon II X4 635 (2.93GHZ Quad Core) RETAILS: $131(CANADIAN)
AMD Phenom II X4 925 (2.8GHZ Quad Core) RETAILS: $164(CANADIAN)

As you can see the cheapest Quad Core solution from Intel is Core i5 750 @ $240.. Cheapest from AMD is $131.. or if you want a higher end Quad Core its still cheaper then Intel @ $164..

The point I'm trying to make is that this is awesome news.. It will either mean price drops on the entry level macs, or higher spec'd AMD Based iMacs.. Because with AMD everything is cheaper.. like the motherboards, video cards, aswell as processors..

 

[emulator]

I agree. AMD has some good multi-core chips coming up. Using AMD with their GPU's would make sense.

Yes, AMD has always "good chips coming up", and they always late and never live up to half the expectation. Sure, they are cheap[, but AMD always equals to last year's tech.

Not to mention, they would not be able to produce 1/4 of the chips Apple orders from them. How many plants they got, one?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Could Apple ever buy AMD? Apple wants to control every bit of every product they sell... they bought PA Semiconductor so they could control iPad/iPhone CPUs... they changed the iPhone 4.0 SDK so they wouldn't be beholden to any 3rd party middleware manufacturers when it comes to iPad/iPhone software...

But when it comes to their "normal" computers, Apple is beholden to Intel... could Apple perhaps buy (or invest in) AMD as a method of extrapolating this strategy to their "normal" computer product lines?

It wouldn't make sense. PA Semi is a chip design company focused on a smaller lineup of chips. In this case Apple needs to simply stay on the periphery and order from the best sources. They've been working on keeping OS X code portable across different flavors of hardware so buying a company kind of makes them commit to one platform which isn't ideal.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Please discuss.

I'm coming from the point of view that software optimization is more important than hardware optimization.

People will often fret over buying a 2.6Ghz or 2.8Ghz processor (within the same processor lineup) when the benchmarked difference is only 10% or so an thus barely perceptible unless one runs synthetic benchmarks.

AMD delivers more power for less money. If that translates into saving a bit of money on a Mac then those funds could be applied to beefiing up the configuration (like adding a SSD or RAM) which could negate the performance differential.

Well first off AMD doesn't deliver "more power" for less money, they deliver less power for less money. There is a reason their chips are so cheap. Because no one wants them at the same prices.

Secondly, the irony of your first post is that Apple could cut 400 dollars off of the Mac Pro, even at launch, and still make gobs of profit.

Third, your claim of Intel's huge profits taking advantage of weaker competition directly contradicts you just now claiming that AMD delivers more power. Which is it? And the fact that as a result we "pay through the nose"... so a 200 dollar chip that kicks all sorts of butt (the i5 750) is paying through the nose, but a 2500 dollar machine that is more like a sub 1k machine from Apple is great? Come on now, that can't be a serious comment. Everything you just accused Intel of doing, Apple does in spades. Maybe the worst company around in terms of bilking customers for their money.

I would bet money that if Apple goes AMD, we would either get a tiny price cut, or no price cut at all. And I could fully see a price increase.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Yes, AMD has always "good chips coming up", and they always late and never live up to half the expectation. Sure, they are cheap[, but AMD always equals to last year's tech.

Not to mention, they would not be able to produce 1/4 of the chips Apple orders from them. How many plants they got, one?

They have as many plants as they need since it's easy to contract out to fabs to do the work which is how many companies do it today.

 

[cliveren13]

Good idea

I have an AMD QUAD-CORE system custom built and i would never give up my AMD for intel nothing personal i have an intel mac 27 inch i love both the best of both worlds Apple is just being smart there are people out there with Amd Hackingtosh systems running excellent so why not stop being closed minded.

 

[CFreymarc]

.... Maybe for the lowest end macs if any.

This is where I see AMD in the Mac lineup. Apple is looking to go higher volume and rumors have been flying wild of a 10" to 12" screen, netbook style Mac for the past few years. I can easily see an AMD processor in this type of Mac to keep the costs down and volume up. To the third party developer, I'm sure there will not be special build nor a fat binary. Just don't try to run the latest version of Photoshop on it. Unfortunately, I'm sure some will.

 

[hayesk]

Or it could be simply Apple is interested in ATI's video cards. Video editors used to favour ATI over nVidia - I don't know if that's still true.

 

[myoldwatermill]

um... yeah, it would be awesome if my computer ran on rainbows, too.

just because intel has success doesn't mean AMD has the capabilities to "develop a response"

IF future vaporware amd chips are as fast as future vaporware intel chips while using less power and costing less... then yes, what a great deal that would be.

but jeez man.. if magical elves gave us alien technology, that would also be awesome. and similar in probability.

A did you see the new graphics that ati brought out and how cheap it was for the performance it gave?

If you think that amd is going to sit back you are foolish. They are developing something just at this moment and it is only a matter of time before they release something to combatant the intel chips. Why in the world would they let an opportunity like this pass them? You should be EXPECTING a competitor to compete.

Even if you argue that intel will be doing the same thing (building chips) Apple hasn't had a problem using older processors in their builds.

If amd can (and they will) produce a chip that is cheap and powerful to match thatmof the i7, it would make sense for apple to look into dropping the problems they are having with intel and nvidia.

 

[4nNtt]

Why can't there be the best of both worlds? Intel CPUs and ATI GPUs. AMD's current CPUs lag behind Intel's and their notebook ones seem to make a lot of heat. Maybe they have some new ones coming soon that can improve on those things.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Apple wants to do something like that, but Intel wont let them. That is why there are theories about an AMD switch. The big problem is that performance per watt sucks on AMD. It could be that AMD has a secret new mobile processor though. I'm sure that would be of great interest to Apple. This would be the time too. It feels like Apple's Intel relationship is souring. The impression I get is Apple wants more control over the chipset, but Intel doesn't want to give it to them because they are trying to move to system on a chip for mobile processors. Intel wants a generic system on a chip so they have more control over how it integrates with their processor. Intel's goals are a generic part for a generic computer. That conflicts with what Apple wants. Both Apple and Intel want this system on a chip for power efficiency, but Apple wants a different graphics core. So if AMD has been able to match Intel with some new upcoming tech and integrate their superior graphics cores, it would be a no brainer for Apple to switch to AMD.

 

[Speedy2]

There will be no "switch" to AMD CPUs. Period. While it has to be said that the Intel chipsets + GPU are ridiculously bad these days, their CPUs are just way too strong. Especially in the mobile CPU area, AMD's offerings are useless. Bulldozer might earn them a few laurels in the desktop+server area, but I doubt they will be able to suddenly churn out a product on par with the next Core iX M iteration (Sandy Bridge). AMD CPUs have always been designed as server/desktop chips with the mobile variant as an afterthought, while Intel did on crucial thing right in the last decade: they developed dedicated mobile CPUs and turned one of them into an extremely good desktop/server CPU. This fact (and some unfair business practices) allowed them to basically suck everywhere else (P4, Itanium, GPU, memory (Rambus, FBDIMM), Larrabee, now chipsets)

This was probably only a GPU-related talk where Nvidia is now seriously behind with their Fermi cards.

 

[snar3281]

Why does everyone assume there will be 10.7? This could be for Mac OS 11.

Mac OS X is now a decade old and Steve Jobs said that's how long it would last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GkoAa5718Y 7:50

I could see this being a great move for OS 11.

 

[Cleve]

AppleInsider is really jumping the shark lately.

AMD is a full generation behind Intel at the very least, especially in Mobile chips. Apple isn't going to slum with AMD just because Intel isn't giving Apple first dibbs on Chips anymore.

 

[cmaier]

They have as many plants as they need since it's easy to contract out to fabs to do the work which is how many companies do it today.

AMD has 0 plants actually.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Why does everyone assume there will be 10.7? This could be for Mac OS 11.

Mac OS X is now a decade old and Steve Jobs said that's how long it would last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GkoAa5718Y 7:50

I could see this being a great move for OS 11.

Probably because Snow Leopard was claimed to lay the groundwork for the future versions of OSX. Of course they could throw that all out the window, but if they were going right to OS11, why would they even bother? Unless it's just a new OS in name only.

 

[dwd3885]

this would've been great 5 years ago, before Core Duo ever came out, when AMD routinely smashed Intel in performance. But now, it would be a very stupid move if you want the best performance.

 

[daxomni]

The team that did all the great design work for Athlon 64/Opteron is gone. Forced out or quit in disgust. They now work at Apple, Oracle, misc. startups, and, in my case, changed careers.

You sound bitter. You also sound convinced that nobody could ever fill your shoes. I'll go on the record saying I'm willing to call your bluff.

 

[*LTD*]

More integration with video hardware, road to expanding the A4 line (will AMD be onboard for development?), borrowing from iPad hardware design to use in future Macs. the question is, where does PA Semi fit into all this?

 

[e12a]

AMD? Seriously? Well it would be a suicide attempt for Apple. I don't want to cook a bacon egg and cheese on the palmrest of my laptop. That's what AMD processors good at.

that may be for laptops, but their desktop processors run a great deal cooler than intel. I wait until AMD can push their Bulldozer CPUs in 2011. Those use entirely new architecture, while these Phenoms have been using the same architecture with tweaks piled on.

 

[carmenodie]

Intel is the BEST chip maker in the world hands down. I can't see having a flame war over that fact.
I wonder if someone is trying to manipulate the AMD's stock. HMMM!

Off topic here,
What happened about the Adobe supposedly suing Apple over Flash story? I haven't heard any other media outlet carry the "RUMOR".

 

[chris200x9]

yay now apple can get cheaper processors that aren't as powerful and...not lower the price at all...great!

 

[cmaier]

You sound bitter. You also sound convinced that nobody could ever fill your shoes. I'll go on the record saying I'm willing to call your bluff.

Hey, I left on my own. AMD has not made a real profit (other than 2 one-time events) since Q4 06. They had the performance and performance/power lead with Opteron and Athlon 64 (K8). Now they lag in both performance and performance/power. They lost so much money they had to spin off their fabs into a new company just to get cash to survive.

Call my bluff all you want, but everyone here knows the facts, and knows that AMD actually had a lead over Intel for 2 or 3 years due to its high performance 64 bit cores and integrated memory controller and point-to-point bus. Then they sat on their heels and did nothing because the K7 (Athlon) team took over when Jerry Sanders retired and was replaced by Raza (the guy who decided to spill corporate secrets to everyone so they could make money in the market, apparently), and the folks in Texas resented the folks in California.

 

[e12a]

Intel is the BEST chip maker in the world hands down. I can't see having a flame war over that fact.
I wonder if someone is trying to manipulate the AMD's stock. HMMM!

Off topic here,
What happened about the Adobe supposedly suing Apple over Flash story? I haven't heard any other media outlet carry the "RUMOR".

Best as in the fastest, but best as in business? I think not. AMD was just paid i think $1 billion by intel. What does that tell you?

Hey, I left on my own. AMD has not made a real profit (other than 2 one-time events) since Q4 06. They had the performance and performance/power lead with Opteron and Athlon 64 (K8). K9 never happened. Ever wonder about that? Now they lag in both performance and performance/power. They lost so much money they had to spin off their fabs into a new company just to get cash to survive.

no, they did make a profit this quarter via their 5xxx GPUs.

 

[*LTD*]

yay now apple can get cheaper processors that aren't as powerful and...not lower the price at all...great!

It might all be about A4 development.

 

[TMay]

Well first off AMD doesn't deliver "more power" for less money, they deliver less power for less money. There is a reason their chips are so cheap. Because no one wants them at the same prices.

Secondly, the irony of your first post is that Apple could cut 400 dollars off of the Mac Pro, even at launch, and still make gobs of profit.

Third, your claim of Intel's huge profits taking advantage of weaker competition directly contradicts you just now claiming that AMD delivers more power. Which is it? And the fact that as a result we "pay through the nose"... so a 200 dollar chip that kicks all sorts of butt (the i5 750) is paying through the nose, but a 2500 dollar machine that is more like a sub 1k machine from Apple is great? Come on now, that can't be a serious comment. Everything you just accused Intel of doing, Apple does in spades. Maybe the worst company around in terms of bilking customers for their money.

I would bet money that if Apple goes AMD, we would either get a tiny price cut, or no price cut at all. And I could fully see a price increase.

I would argue that it depends on the application. I came across the following:

http://techpulse360.com/2010/04/01/analyst-amd-12-cores-vs-intel-6-cores-server-chips/

It would appear that the AMD dual socket chips might in fact be a better match for Apple's Mac Pro and server line especially when you consider that Apple is pushing Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL. You give up some clock rate for added threads and bandwidth, which suits Apple and OS X.

Would the iMac benefit from AMD? Probably little, and the same could be said for the Mac Mini unless AMD configures a CPU and GPU that collectively beat Intel on performance, price and still meets the thermal requirements of the Mac Mini package.