Apple Sessions at Intel Developer Forum

[MacRumors]

Infoworld points out that Apple will have two sessions at Intel's Fall Developer Forum from September 26-28th in San Fracisco.

The author sees this as an long delayed endorsement from Intel for Apple:

Intel has put two Apple sessions at the top of its Featured Sessions list for the upcoming Intel Developer Forum. That isn't Apple doing Intel a favor by filling a couple of empty slots in the schedule. Intel is touching a toe to that third rail for component manufacturers: Endorsement

This comes in the wake of comments by AMD CEO that he feels Apple will eventually come around and buy AMD chips as an alternative to Intel. While the comment has received a lot of press, it appears to be a simply speculative comment without any particular basis.

 

[HelloKitty]

Well..personally, I think AMD CPUs in Macintosh is a good option!

 

[BornAgainMac]

Apple is a major customer

Apple is buying the more expensive CPUs from Intel. It wouldn't surprise me if they were ranked the 3rd largest customer of Intel products in sales. Remember that companies like Dell and HP buy from AMD and also a lot of Celerons that make up a big chunk of users.

 

[baleensavage]

Well..personally, I think AMD CPUs in Macintosh is a good option!

I agree. I don't think Apple should tie themselves to one chip vendor. If AMD has a better chip, then by all means use it. It does however, seem somewhat pompous of the CEO of AMD to say that he's sure that Apple will come around.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Well..personally, I think AMD CPUs in Macintosh is a good option!

AMD can't offer Apple a complete solution, not yet at least. Intel can give the fastest processors (now), chipsets, graphics chips, bla bla. Until the AMD/ATi acquisition is a distant memory and they truly become one company.

 

[syklee26]

i thought AMD chip's best strength comes from video gaming. if so, i m not sure AMD would be a viable option for Apple, especially considering Apple Mac's enclosures are thinner than normal PeeCees.

 

[Doctor Q]

This comes in the wake of comments by AMD CEO that he feels Apple will eventually come around and buy AMD chips as an alternative to Intel. While the comment has received a lot of press, it appears to be a simply speculative comment without any particular basis.

It could be called "wishful thinking" but I think it was also an overture to Apple. Intel is smart to accommodate Apple and make it happy with its decision.

 

[treblah]

*opens Anandtech.com in new tab

*now waiting until the 26th to continuously Command+R

 

[Clive At Five]

I think Apple adopting some AMD chips would cause confusion, especially to users who don't know much about computers. Besides, there isn't really a standard way to compare the speeds of Intel and AMD chips so who's to say that an Intel (blah blah blah) is faster than an AMD (blee blee blee)? Like I said, confusing to the normal user.

To us, it probably wouldn't be a big deal because we peruse these sites day-in and day-out, at home, at work, we read up on all the processors and whatnot. But the remaining 80% (at least) of users don't know what-from-what.

Secondly, adopting AMD chips alongside Intel chips would, likely, split the Apple's Pro-users down the middle, some supporting Intel, some supporting AMD.

Thirdly, even though Intel and AMD chips have identical instruction sets, they don't have identical pin-layouts. Apple would, thus, have to create two motherboards for each computer, one for Intel, one for AMD.

Fourthly, Intel and Apple are buddy-buddy right now, since Apple is one of Intel's larger customers nowadays (note the special presentation slot given to Apple) and as long as they remain that way, Apple will reap the benefits thereof. These may or may not include cheaper prices, Apple soft/hardware optimization consideration in future chips, etc.

Fifthly, Apple has written OS X especially to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. (This means nothing in terms of third-party software, but it's at least a start.) Intel is beginning to sprout multi-core chips out of its posterior. A octal-core Mac is theoretically right around the corner (and if Apple doesn't release one, the user can upgrade him/herself). In AMD chips, I don't see anywhere near the progress Intel has made in this area.

Five Point Fively, Software Developers are beginning to write their software to take advantage of multiple cores, giving Intel a further advantage.

Sixthly, I should be working right now, so I'm done.

-Clive

 

[ThunderLounge]

In the big picture, haven't AMD's always been better at "number crunching" while Intel (NOT Celeron) has been better with "graphic processing"?

While that may not necessarily be the case today, and AMD does make some nice chips, I'm with the line of thought that runs along the consumer confusion line.

Also, I agree that Apple is a perfect customer to Intel. If nothing more, they know Apple will be buying the top-end chips and not the low-end models like the Celeron's.

 

[Am3822]

Intel vs. AMD

I know this isn't the best way to compare number crunching abilities, but take a look at:

http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/pb05/linux/f90bench_AMD.html
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/pb05/linux/f90bench_p4.html

Note, however, that these are not results for core duo processors.

 

[HecubusPro]

This, with Photokina happening at the same time, makes me think that next week would be the perfect time to release core2duo MBP's.

Of course, I'm also interested to see what goes on at these keynotes.

 

[AidenShaw]

This, with Photokina happening at the same time, makes me think that next week would be the perfect time to release core2duo MBP's.

It would also be a good time for Apple to show the new Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC - complete with the Intel Viiv platform brand for the Apple Media Center coming with 10.5.

And it would be really far out if they show the Apple Media Center running with a quad-core Kentsfield!

 

[mdriftmeyer]

It would cause confusion? However, PC users aren't confused by the success of AMD? Then are we going to say that PC users are now smarter than Mac users?

It won't cause confusion. That's unsubstantiated fear.

I think Apple adopting some AMD chips would cause confusion, especially to users who don't know much about computers. Besides, there isn't really a standard way to compare the speeds of Intel and AMD chips so who's to say that an Intel (blah blah blah) is faster than an AMD (blee blee blee)? Like I said, confusing to the normal user.

To us, it probably wouldn't be a big deal because we peruse these sites day-in and day-out, at home, at work, we read up on all the processors and whatnot. But the remaining 80% (at least) of users don't know what-from-what.

Secondly, adopting AMD chips alongside Intel chips would, likely, split the Apple's Pro-users down the middle, some supporting Intel, some supporting AMD.

Thirdly, even though Intel and AMD chips have identical instruction sets, they don't have identical pin-layouts. Apple would, thus, have to create two motherboards for each computer, one for Intel, one for AMD.

Fourthly, Intel and Apple are buddy-buddy right now, since Apple is one of Intel's larger customers nowadays (note the special presentation slot given to Apple) and as long as they remain that way, Apple will reap the benefits thereof. These may or may not include cheaper prices, Apple soft/hardware optimization consideration in future chips, etc.

Fifthly, Apple has written OS X especially to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. (This means nothing in terms of third-party software, but it's at least a start.) Intel is beginning to sprout multi-core chips out of its posterior. A octal-core Mac is theoretically right around the corner (and if Apple doesn't release one, the user can upgrade him/herself). In AMD chips, I don't see anywhere near the progress Intel has made in this area.

Five Point Fively, Software Developers are beginning to write their software to take advantage of multiple cores, giving Intel a further advantage.

Sixthly, I should be working right now, so I'm done.

-Clive

 

[Lynxpoint]

It would also be a good time for Apple to show the new Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC - complete with the Intel Viiv platform brand for the Apple Media Center coming with 10.5.

And it would be really far out if they show the Apple Media Center running with a quad-core Kentsfield!

Is there really a need for a "media centre"?

I think having a thin client in the living-room is the better direction for apple to be taking with the iTV.

Who really wants a big bloated box in the living-room? "Servers belong in the server room"; "home/media servers belong off in their own space leaving clean quite access points throughout the house".

Thats my view anyway.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is there really a need for a "media centre"?

I think having a thin client in the living-room is the better direction for apple to be taking with the iTV.

Who really wants a big bloated box in the living-room? "Servers belong in the server room"; "home/media servers belong off in their own space leaving clean quite access points throughout the house".

Thats my view anyway.

But, Apple does not yet have the "home/media server" that your thin client needs to work !! The "iTV" is the second part of the equation - and the first part is missing.

Whether you choose to put the Apple Media Centre in your den or your office or in a closet is up to you.

 

[Lynxpoint]

wouldn't the minimum for the "media server" for iTV be any PC?

Agreed, long term it would be interesting to see a home server product (if feasable).

I wonder if the long term approach Apple will take will be to introduce a home server system. Is there enough of a potential market for this type of product? I guess the "high end" custom home theater installations could go for this once Apple offers 1080p video downloads combinded with either an automated dvd ripping system to move movies to a RAID or (given copyright issues) a media-jukebox. There have been different prototype smarthomes built over the years. I wonder if Apple has one built somewhere? (I have thought Apple could easily market an integrated line of products like B&O - people could have their VOIP(?) iphone that also controls A/V and widgets (can't ask too much of it).

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I am an AMD fan from way back but personally I have to say for the next few years Intel has the better roadmap and application for Apple.

AMD has fast desktop processors, that is it. AMD's low end CPUs, wireless and portable solutions are complete rubbish and they don't even bother with their own chipsets.

Apple needs a company where across the board they produce quality intergrated computing solutions, enter Intel. Apple needs a solid single supplier of Desktop CPU's, Portable CPU's and chipsets AMD doesn't do this. From a media point of view Intel has better intergrated media solutions and support, this is where Apple is heading therefore AMD is a bad choice.

And who knows we might even get a choice in a few years time for an AMD or Intel Mac Pro on the Apple Store (now that would be nice).

And more to the point I don't see too many people complaining about the Intel Macs not being fast enough

 

[2ndPath]

I think Apple adopting some AMD chips would cause confusion, especially to users who don't know much about computers. Besides, there isn't really a standard way to compare the speeds of Intel and AMD chips so who's to say that an Intel (blah blah blah) is faster than an AMD (blee blee blee)? Like I said, confusing to the normal user.

To us, it probably wouldn't be a big deal because we peruse these sites day-in and day-out, at home, at work, we read up on all the processors and whatnot. But the remaining 80% (at least) of users don't know what-from-what.

Secondly, adopting AMD chips alongside Intel chips would, likely, split the Apple's Pro-users down the middle, some supporting Intel, some supporting AMD.

Thirdly, even though Intel and AMD chips have identical instruction sets, they don't have identical pin-layouts. Apple would, thus, have to create two motherboards for each computer, one for Intel, one for AMD.

I don't think Apple would sell each machine with a choice of CPUs (not a Mac Pro with Intel and a Mac Pro with AMD). They would rather take the best CPU that is available for a particular model, for example AMD for the Mac Pro, Intel for the iMac. For the consumer this wouldn't be confusing as most Apple consumers don't really care anyhow, which CPU is used in the machine as long as it is a Mac.

Fourthly, Intel and Apple are buddy-buddy right now, since Apple is one of Intel's larger customers nowadays (note the special presentation slot given to Apple) and as long as they remain that way, Apple will reap the benefits thereof. These may or may not include cheaper prices, Apple soft/hardware optimization consideration in future chips, etc.

Fifthly, Apple has written OS X especially to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. (This means nothing in terms of third-party software, but it's at least a start.) Intel is beginning to sprout multi-core chips out of its posterior. A octal-core Mac is theoretically right around the corner (and if Apple doesn't release one, the user can upgrade him/herself). In AMD chips, I don't see anywhere near the progress Intel has made in this area.

Five Point Fively, Software Developers are beginning to write their software to take advantage of multiple cores, giving Intel a further advantage.

Sixthly, I should be working right now, so I'm done.

-Clive

I agree that the current product line from Intel is more suited for Macs than AMD's. In addition Intel and Apple are working closely together and Intel has the resources to support Apple's hardware develpment. Also Intel offers complete solutions including the whole chip set and GPU to go with the CPU. AMD is still not at the same level in this respect although they are probably going that way after having aquired ATI.

So I guess AMD is no option for Apple right now, but might be one in the future.