Apple Seriously Considered Switching to AMD in 2011 MacBook Air

[addicted44]

There is so much speculation in the comments, when the article clearly spells out why Apple wanted AMD.

Intel's licencing policies was causing them to use an inferior Intel GPU if they wanted the latest processor, and so they had to stick to an older Processor. AMD at its best was not as good as Intel, but AMD's processors were still better than 2 generation old Intel processors. And Intel's graphics are still not as good as Nvidia/ATI (AMD).

So here were Apple's options:
1) Terrible CPU (Intel) / Great GPU (Nvidia)
2) Great CPU (Intel) / Terrible GPU (Intel)
3) Good->Great CPU (AMD) / Great GPU (ATI/AMD)

 

[daneoni]

Shame. It would've been huge for their bottom line.

 

[Roman2K~]

Graphics wise yes it does muddy up the issue somewhat, but we are talking about Macbook Air's here, is graphics performance even worth discussing?

GPUs aren't used exclusively for games anymore. Video processing + encoding + decoding, web page rendering acceleration, and more.

So, yes, performance-wise, AMD are still making relevant processors. Poor CPU performance being balanced by their capable iGPU, given the growing need for them.

However, seeing how power-inefficient the whole package (CPU + iGPU) is, I think it wouldn't have been a smart choice for the Air.

 

[unplugme71]

Not even close. AMD vs Intel is not the same as some small camera companies that may not even make their own cameras. More like Ford vs Mercedes Benz both get the job done but I know which one I know I want under the hood.

Last I checked, Canon and Nikon do more than make small cameras.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/home
http://www.nikon.com/products/instruments/index.htm
http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/index.htm

 

[Dr McKay]

I'd heard that AMD were behind Intel? And that any AMD processors that can keep up with Intel clockspeed-wise used way more power?

 

[Bear]

AMD's CPUs are horrible... I thought Apple cared about power usage. Intel has done quite a bit of work on that, plus, AMD's implementation of Turboboost is pretty bad...

It doesn't matter how good or bad AMD CPUs were. They were once good and could be good again. Apple would be irresponsible if they didn't check out the AMD chips.

Among other things, who knows, AMD could have a good chip. It also reminds Intel that Apple is not complacent about vendors. This reminder is right now probably the most important thing that Apple gets when they test AMD chips.

 

[goosnarrggh]

To be more precise, the both run the x86 instruction set and the AMD64 instruction set. See that there, AMD-haters? Yes, Intel had to license the 64-Bit instruction set from AMD because AMD had that LONG before Intel came up with a 64-Bit architecture.

Intel had 64-bit processors shipping under the Itanium architecture in 2001; the first AMD64 processor shipped in 2003.

However, the Itanium architecture was not backwards-compatible with x86. Legacy software had to be emulated. First-generation Itaniums had hardware support to accelerate the emulation, but it was still clunky. (Later generations abandoned the x86 emulation hardware acceleration to simplify the design, placing the burden of emulation entirely in software, similar to Rosetta.) With the exception of highly specialized circumstances, the market shunned Itanium, and Intel basically abandoned most of its future plans based on that design.

In the meantime, AMD came up with the AMD64 instruction set, which was backward compatible with x86 without the need for emulation. The market really liked to AMD64, probably because it allowed a smoother migration, allowing 32-bit operating systems and applications to continue to run on a provisional basis, and also to allow native performance of 32-bit software as operating systems gradually transitioned to 64-bit.

Intel, seeing the flop that Itanium had become, decided to license AMD64 as its new strategy for 64-bit systems.

 

[adder7712]

I wouldn't mind an AMD MacBook Pro to be honest.

 

[unlinked]

market cap

apple 478 billion
amd 5 billion

apple cash on hand 100 billion

why not just buy amd and be done?

Why does almost every article have to include comments about buying companies. Apple has a lot of cash,we get it.

 

[mrxak]

I hope someday AMD chips get good enough to be considered by Apple, because competition is a good thing. Right now though, I don't see AMD being much in the running for at least a few years.

 

[Tiger8]

if it works better fine by me. AMD is underrated.

True! Been using Intel based PCs starting from the good old days of 286 (anyone knows what that is?), that said, never underestimate AMD, I have seen the company transform the 'joke' to the 'cheap' to the 'serious competitor' in a mere decade...

 

[kiljoy616]

Who gives a **** what processor(s) Apple uses in its products as long as they deliver performance increases over previous models and preserve the user experience.

If Apple could put a Pentium 2 in a MacBook Air and was (somehow) able to deliver comparable or better performance, it wouldn't stop me from buying a new MacBook Air.

I really don't get why people get so hung up on 'specs' and don't focus on usability.

Apple isn't going to release a notebook that has a processor that doesn't work to its standards.

Because my is bigger than yours is still how we look at most things. What else would we debate than spec and religious conviction of one CPU vs another. Its not like this thread is full of the female persuasion.

I go with you on who cares, put a dam ARM for all I care just make sure it runs fast, smooth, and "just works" all the time.

 

[HyperX13]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I never had luck with amd processors.back in the day of building my pcs, the amds would always freeze, etc.

 

[Wicked1]

Not AMD please!

I have been running both for years, and to be honest, there is no advantage over Intel unless your crunching numbers, but AMD is just as good and cheaper.

I think in the future Apple will migrate to their own chip bc Intel chips are way over priced, but we will see.

 

[kiljoy616]

Last I checked, Canon and Nikon do more than make small cameras.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/home
http://www.nikon.com/products/instruments/index.htm
http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/index.htm

True and yes I did look up the companies before I made the comment but I believe we where talking about company vs company and felt the car manufacturers was more relevant. Plus does anyone really care if they have a cannon or nikon except those with with fan club status for the companies.

Ford makes some good cars like AMD makes some good CPU. Merced makes some really good cars and they push out some sweet ideas and benchmarks if your into that as your reason to buy a car/system. From my experience with both I think Intel/Mercedes are way more fun to drive/deal with.

Same for ATI vs Nvidia. I like ATI they make good GPU for the Price Using dual GPU on my gaming system but if you want care free issues with drivers Nvidia wins even now.

Its all about the drive when I purchase from Apple. I guess I find it strange people think Apple should or will become Dell which makes no sense why people want or need this to happen.

 

[cgc]

I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an Intel processor and cause the computer to crash. I've seen videos of people removing the CPU fan on an AMD processor keep chugging along.

Well then AMD must be better because of this fan thing.

 

[torroa]

Anyone wanna bet that the next Air wil not come with Ivy Bridge?

 

[Nielsenius]

Anyone wanna bet that the next Air wil not come with Ivy Bridge?

No, because Ivy Bridge is exactly what the MacBook Air needs: lower power consumption, better integrated graphics, and more efficient processing than second-gen Core i chips.

 

[scoobydoo99]

My guess is that Apple considered AMD and asked for samples, but primarily as a bargaining chip to use with Intel.

Exactly. I don't know how people could consider this rumored switch to AMD to have been even a remote possibility. It is simply Apple keeping Intel on their toes. If they think they have a customer locked in, they will try to skimp on R&D or keep prices high. The whole charade with AMD (including convincing the AMD insiders that AMD is "Plan A") is about deceiving Intel in order to negotiate more favorable deals.

 

[ablashek]

PowerPC to Intel was an architecture switch. Intel and AMD use the same architecture. Also, Intel Macs were pretty freakin' fast when they first came out. Tiger on Intel ran faster than Tiger ever did on PowerPC, so I don't know what you're talking about there. A switch to AMD, especially to someone who is upgrading from either a Core Duo or an early Core 2 Duo would STILL result in a faster machine.

Yes, PowerPC to Intel was an architectural shift, and they did that pretty well. OSX was pretty good in Intel. But the Configurations Sucked!
I use only Macs in my Office, we have couple of Mini's, couple of Laptops, a MacPro Server etc. And those two Mini's running the first version of Core Duo were slowwww. I don't know if it was the small bus size, the lack of ram, or what. When I actually used it, the machine felt like an Acer that sucks in configuration, and results in a machine thats great on specs (when your about to buy), and sucks in actual use.

Since then, the Mac has had much better configurations (more harmonious). The next couple of Mini's I purchased were much much better, and running the same OSX Tiger that the first one ran in.

So to summarize, when Mac's first moved to Intel, the configurations sucked not the architecture. I'm scared that they might underestimate the specs again, and release product that is performing at sub par levels.

 

[Yaboze]

The Intel and nVidia's licensing issues only hurt consumers in the end. We need nVidia GPU's in Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge laptops.

GPU's in these portable devices need to get better, not just for games, but for other processing that can be done and UI's that are getting more complex.

 

[jonnysods]

Gross, don't use AMD!

 

[snowmoon]

I'm sure Apple is always keeping an eye on alternatives, it would be silly for them to ignore. Even if they never switch to AMD keeping the door open means that Intel is always on their toes and they will always have something "in the pipeline". This is not unlike the fact that they have kept both major GPU's on the hook as well and will switch back and forth as needed.

This is why in some backroom there will probably always be an ARM and AMD development teams testing the latest and greatest wears from each to see if they make sense in a particular model. In this case I'm sure AMD got quite far in the process since Intel's bundling is bound to be putting a cramp on Apple's flexibility.

 

[Gemütlichkeit]

I'm a loyalist to better technology.. so if AMD can produce a chip that's gets the performance with low battery drain, i don't care what cpu is in the laptop.

 

[gpsouza]

Seriously, I really don't give a crap about which processor is in my macbook. I just want the best. If they can prove that AMD is currently best than Intel, ok for me!

Obviously that Intel processors is far better than AMD, but you don't know, things can change... So, if they think it's best, ok, it's best.