"subpar" makes it sound like AMDs CPUs are crap. That are not. Intels are better, sure, but AMD makes some very nice CPUs, espesially when considering the price.
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
I know this is just a rumor but doesn't that just kill the arrandale hype and begin the unofficial wait for amd processor/sandy bridge blah blah...makes me not want to get a arrandale macbook pro if this is the case.
when this happens.. I will buy a mac.
Apple will obviously work in collaboration with AMD when designing chips for their computers.. since AMD is a smaller company than Intel, it allows Apple to work closer and have a more customized cpu/gpu set to work with.
In other words. apple will help take AMD to the next level..
Apple will obviously work in collaboration with AMD when designing chips for their computers.. since AMD is a smaller company than Intel, it allows Apple to work closer and have a more customized cpu/gpu set to work with.
In other words. apple will help take AMD to the next level..
I'm told that's not correct. As my (also former AMD) friend put it "They had a 1-time $325 million dollar gain from some Foundry voodoo accounting." (And, of course, that $1B from Intel was the other 1-time event).
Huh? AMDs market-share is about 15-20 at the moment, with room to grow (at best they were a bit over 20%). Apple's market-share is about 6-8%. AMD could supply Apple with processors. Espesially since most of the CPUs Apple would use would still be made by Intel.
Besides, AMD has deals that let's them use outside fabs if needed, so they have plenty of capacity.
This posting is clear that the the product in question are AMD CPU. Apple already has access to GPU from ATI so why would execs be in meetings with Apple for GPU only when the partnership in that arena has been established.
To relage Bulldozer (AMD's most significant core in 3 years or more) to a pithy comment like "might earn them a few laurel" signifies that you likely have not done due diligence in research
What you think about AMD products today has little bearing on where they will be in 2011 . AMD is clearly stronger in GPU and is more OpenCL compliant than Intel or Nvidia right now. They're already sampling Fusion.
I'm not saying AMD is going to eat all of Intel's business but there's little reason to be Intel only when AMD can offer nice systems that can be priced lower than Intel based computers.
I stated Apple adopting AMD processors as very real possibility in a Jan 4, 2010 piece titled, 2010 - What's in store for the Mac?
Note that I state the following under speculation #1
Speculation 1 - Apple adopts AMD processors
Ok, this one is out there but not outside the realm of possibility. By adopting AMD processors, Apple could open several doors for the Mac. I highlight two:
1. It could strengthen Apple's bargaining position with Intel over microprocessor supply and prices. A pure play on buyer and supplier power.
2 Differentiation - Adding AMD as a chip supplier will allow Apple to further differentiate and segment both the portable Mac lineup and its customers. This segmentation could occur at the feature and price sensitivity levels. The precedent was set when Apple lowered Mac prices in 2009. It's no secret that the MacBook and MacBook Pro models do not differ substantially (see Apple's comparison table) even though Apple rebranded the 13-inch aluminum MacBook as a MacBook Pro in June 2009 and now classifies the white polycarbonate model as the only MacBook. Adding a new microprocessor supplier could help differentiate the portable lineup.
Note that I state the following under speculation #1
Speculation 1 - Apple adopts AMD processors
Ok, this one is out there but not outside the realm of possibility. By adopting AMD processors, Apple could open several doors for the Mac. I highlight two:
1. It could strengthen Apple's bargaining position with Intel over microprocessor supply and prices. A pure play on buyer and supplier power.
2 Differentiation - Adding AMD as a chip supplier will allow Apple to further differentiate and segment both the portable Mac lineup and its customers. This segmentation could occur at the feature and price sensitivity levels. The precedent was set when Apple lowered Mac prices in 2009. It's no secret that the MacBook and MacBook Pro models do not differ substantially (see Apple's comparison table) even though Apple rebranded the 13-inch aluminum MacBook as a MacBook Pro in June 2009 and now classifies the white polycarbonate model as the only MacBook. Adding a new microprocessor supplier could help differentiate the portable lineup.
I can't believe this is being pegged as negative by anyone. This is fantastic news.
If Apple gets involved with AMD you bet it will drastically help AMD too, which should improve the quality of their processors. That being said, they're nice right now and in the price/performance arena they crush Intel. Also, ATi owns the graphics market right now. They're faster than nVidia and faster then Intel. (Of course, anything made by nVidia and ATi in the last 5 years is faster than Intel.)
Look at how Apple was personally involved with the chip for the iPad. AMD would certainly allow them to be more involved and AMD would be far more willing to use Apple as a flagship than Intel. (It would also decrease the price of building a vanilla kernel Hackintosh.
) I'm sure the issue over graphics (as evidenced by the 13" MBPs still sporting a C2D) is not making Apple happy in the least.
I would absolutely love it if Apple went with AMD/ATi since I think it'd be a win-win, even if Apple used AMD only in their lower end models at first. I'd take AMD/ATi in the 13" MBP over a C2D and nVidia's weaksauce graphics, even if the CPU wasn't as fast.
If Apple gets involved with AMD you bet it will drastically help AMD too, which should improve the quality of their processors. That being said, they're nice right now and in the price/performance arena they crush Intel. Also, ATi owns the graphics market right now. They're faster than nVidia and faster then Intel. (Of course, anything made by nVidia and ATi in the last 5 years is faster than Intel.)
Look at how Apple was personally involved with the chip for the iPad. AMD would certainly allow them to be more involved and AMD would be far more willing to use Apple as a flagship than Intel. (It would also decrease the price of building a vanilla kernel Hackintosh.
) I'm sure the issue over graphics (as evidenced by the 13" MBPs still sporting a C2D) is not making Apple happy in the least.I would absolutely love it if Apple went with AMD/ATi since I think it'd be a win-win, even if Apple used AMD only in their lower end models at first. I'd take AMD/ATi in the 13" MBP over a C2D and nVidia's weaksauce graphics, even if the CPU wasn't as fast.
If Apple moves to AMD, i'll move to hackintosh. AMD is always a step behind at Intel and Apple can't tell AMD how to make chips. I'm seriously wondering if this benefits consumers and results in way cheaper macs? For example, I want to buy a Mac Pro this year and if the new Mac Pro gets AMD chips and is 200-300 bucks cheaper I won't buy it because I'd rather pay that amount more for better and faster processors. Apple + AMD? It's just wrong.. It's wrong!
(Ok only Ati - AMD videocards)
(Ok only Ati - AMD videocards)
Of course this is a Good Thing, and AMD vs Intel is hardly the point. Apple should always be looking at their component suppliers and whether they still have the right choice, particularly when they're essentially interchangeable (ie: doesn't require a substantial migration like we had from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, or PowerPC to Intel). Even if they don't change anything, reassessing and making sure your choice is still the right one is always good. I can't imagine them deciding to switch to an inferior component, so if AMD don't have anything good to offer, there's nothing to fear or panic about.
very interesting stuff.
could it be part of a winder plan by apple? they have had experience with powerPC, intel now AMD. seems like apple gets to look very closely at some future chips from 2 big companies. legal corporate espionage?
With the resent PA semi and the A4 apple is clearly involved with the semiconductor business and working closely with intel and AMD would really help with their own chip plans.
just an idea....
could it be part of a winder plan by apple? they have had experience with powerPC, intel now AMD. seems like apple gets to look very closely at some future chips from 2 big companies. legal corporate espionage?
With the resent PA semi and the A4 apple is clearly involved with the semiconductor business and working closely with intel and AMD would really help with their own chip plans.
just an idea....
I wonder what would happen if Apple put AMD chips or AMD licensed variants in the iPod/Phone or the iPad?
I also want to point out that Intel is kind of at a high point on arrogance right now, just like they were when they owned the world in performance with PIIIs. Then AMD released the K7 (original Athlon) and beat them to 64-bit with the K8 (original Opteron) and Intel was playing catchup through the entire Netburst architecture (P4) fiasco.
I suspect the pendulum will continue to shift and AMD is the leader in graphics right now. I'm sure Apple's main interest is in portables at the moment and I think AMD is aiming to kick Intel in the nuts again. They've done it before and they acquired a lot of good tech when they bought ATi.
The hardware landscape is changing, especially on portables. Smaller, sleeker, less power hungry, running cooler, etc. I realize a lot of the geniuses on this forum only care specifically about raw power (you know, the guys who can get an i7 laptop with 12GB of RAM for $400), but that's not the only factor in a piece of hardware these days.
If this turns out to be true, it'll mean a lot of things and you can bet that AMD will be willing to utilize Apple as their flagship far more than Intel was.
I don't design chips (but I used to work with people who did, and guess what computers they used for their work), but I can read a processor manual and understand what's in it.
Four years ago when Apple switched the Pentium 4 was the Intel processor of choice. But when you looked at how the AMD processors worked and what a Pentium 4 did... Pentium 4 was a mess. Not something to be proud off. Went completely into the wrong direction. Clock speed at any cost. AMD design was very nice, clean and smooth. Intel would have died if they didn't have the team that created Pentium M and then Core Duo.
And since then Intel has been making smart improvements to their processors. And I mean _smart_ improvements. Like fusing µops, not executing stack changes at all, combining multiple instructions into one, prediction for write-before-read, they even copied Control Data's scheme for executing short loops without instruction reading or decoding, 35 years later
I haven't seen anything smart coming from AMD in that time.
Neither Intel nor AMD have anything that Apple could ever consider for the iPod, iPhone or iPad. ARM beats them by lengths in low power consumption.
What would be really neat is if the AMD processors created a "low-end" Mac choice. The biggest barrier that Apple has right now is its price. I know a lot of people who said they would go to Macs if it wasn't for how expensive they are (I tell them that having to buy a new laptop everyone year and a half {like a lot are after they die} will add up a lot more than the price of a new macbook every 5 years or so, but whatever).
Maybe Apple will keep Intel chips in at the current pricepoint and offer less expensive, AMD processors for a price cut.
It is just a thought (and probably a bad one).
Maybe Apple will keep Intel chips in at the current pricepoint and offer less expensive, AMD processors for a price cut.
It is just a thought (and probably a bad one).
Alternatively, it could be very bad for the hackintosh scene. If Apple work with AMD on a processor uniquely designed for them then it may prove to be very difficult for someone to build a generic box to load the latest OS on. Having said that, I can't see them completely abandoning Intel so soon, but with Apple as we've seen anything is possible
.
It makes complete sense for apple to look to AMD, in every other part Apple has complete control over there supplier, Apple dictate the development and terms, then you have Intel, Apple have no control at all, they have to wait to see what Intel will give them, Steve will not like that one little bit. its not good for a company such as Apple to rely on another to dictate its performance or product lineup and timescale.
a tie up or but out of AMD can only be good, remember the CPU is history, future is all about GPU computing, Apple know this, its unlikely they would buy AMD out of the blue as it would upset Intel to much as AMD have nothing to currently offer , Apple will need time to work on products up to the class they require, its more likely we will see and agreement in the coming months for AMD in Mac and then once all is ready Apple will buy AMD and have complete control and droop intel.
a tie up or but out of AMD can only be good, remember the CPU is history, future is all about GPU computing, Apple know this, its unlikely they would buy AMD out of the blue as it would upset Intel to much as AMD have nothing to currently offer , Apple will need time to work on products up to the class they require, its more likely we will see and agreement in the coming months for AMD in Mac and then once all is ready Apple will buy AMD and have complete control and droop intel.
I don't know what all the negatives are about.
If Apple uses them in the lower-end Macs, it should mean lower prices at the lower end.
And, just maybe, AMD's got a great architecture in the pipeline that would allow them to jump ahead of intel in an area. That could lead to lower prices at the higher end, and would make the high end higher.
Sure, if Apple only offers low-end AMD processors, that would stink, but why assume that at this point?
If Apple uses them in the lower-end Macs, it should mean lower prices at the lower end.
And, just maybe, AMD's got a great architecture in the pipeline that would allow them to jump ahead of intel in an area. That could lead to lower prices at the higher end, and would make the high end higher.
Sure, if Apple only offers low-end AMD processors, that would stink, but why assume that at this point?