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 Threatened to Abandon Intel Chips over Power Consumption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AMD is fun and all but their mobile platform was sorely lacking until Llano and it still is until Trinity.
2006 would like to call you back. Memory is bad around here. Maybe we can even go back to Pentium-M.
When Intel is making decisions like this, they consider not only total units sold to a customer but how much profit is earned per unit sold. That profit number is a function of unit price times the profit margin percentage.
What you need to understand is that in the laptop segment, Apple is a big player and that lionshare of the market is made up of really small whitebox builders as opposed to the big brand names. Apple is one of the larger customers for Intel and Apple is a premium customer that buys some of their most expensive chips with the highest profit margins on them.
understand that profit != volume. Profit = (volume * unit price) * (profit margin percentage/100)
Last edited by a moderator:
*lol*
Not even close!
And regarding AMD:
They have some excellent GPUs and drivers (no quality reducing, artificial "speed-up" tricks), but AMDs CPUs require nearly the same power as the Intel counterparts.
Btw, as a victim of the NVIDIA disaster, i'm glad that Apple uses AMD GPUs in all current Mac models.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
I disagree. I think what Apple is saying to Intel is stop thinking of performance in tems of processor speed and start thinking of processor performance in terms of efficiency. The ideal that a laptop that is 20% faster than last years model has given way to driving towards laptops which are lighter and offer better battery life.
Dwalls90 said:
I disagree. I think what Apple is saying to Intel is stop thinking of performance in tems of processor speed and start thinking of processor performance in terms of efficiency. The ideal that a laptop that is 20% faster than last years model has given way to driving towards laptops which are lighter and offer better battery life.
I guess we will have to wait and see, bet from what I have heard ARMs performance per watt is good, but overall performance isn't.
What is coming to light is the fact that faster CPU's are becoming unnecessary. Apple seems to have gotten themselves stuck in the mhz game.
Last edited:
I am just running off speculation here but I am assuming pumping out higher end cpu's actually cost more than the low end. The low end was probably developed long ago and the technology has probably paid for itself so I would guess they are making more profit off the low end mass sales than the higher end but fewer sales at a higher cost.
Getting down to really fine numbers that I would love to see some facts backing it either way besides a bunch of ideas but no real numbers to prove either person right or wrong. I can find the numbers for the Atom CPU's but nothing for like an i7.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apples value for Intel is more about prestige than it is sales. Apple may only account for 5% of Intels sales but they probably account for 80% of keeping Intels name in the media. If Apple dropped Intel the loss of sales to Apple would be the least of Intels problems. HP may be Intels most important customer in terms of dales but Apple is its most important customer in terms of image.
lilo777 said:
Apples value for Intel is more about prestige than it is sales. Apple may only account for 5% of Intels sales but they probably account for 80% of keeping Intels name in the media. If Apple dropped Intel the loss of sales to Apple would be the least of Intels problems. HP may be Intels most important customer in terms of dales but Apple is its most important customer in terms of image.
Don't count intel out.
I think intel is smart to listen to Apple and respond accordingly. Where Apple leads the market follows. Also, while Intel has been left out of the Arm market, the Atom roadmap has really improved. Whats changing is Intel will have 22nm finfet technology many years before anybody else (in 2012). Finfet is where the transistor channel is surrounded on three sided by the gate. Nobody else is doing finfet at 22nm. What this means, is intel is about to make up a lot of the power dissipation difference between Atom and Arm.
Steve
I think intel is smart to listen to Apple and respond accordingly. Where Apple leads the market follows. Also, while Intel has been left out of the Arm market, the Atom roadmap has really improved. Whats changing is Intel will have 22nm finfet technology many years before anybody else (in 2012). Finfet is where the transistor channel is surrounded on three sided by the gate. Nobody else is doing finfet at 22nm. What this means, is intel is about to make up a lot of the power dissipation difference between Atom and Arm.
Steve
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Funny, the same was said of Toyota before they released the Lexus LS400.
lilo777 said:
Funny, the same was said of Toyota before they released the Lexus LS400.
So AMD would be the logical choice for an alternative, especially given that their CPUs are less efficient in power per watt. 
I really hope they don't switch to ARM either, at least not a full lineup switch, as it will be quite a while before ARM can catch up to Intel in terms of performance, and while I'm not a super heavy user, I do use some CPU heavy apps occasionally and would rather have the extra power than the extra battery life.
I really hope they don't switch to ARM either, at least not a full lineup switch, as it will be quite a while before ARM can catch up to Intel in terms of performance, and while I'm not a super heavy user, I do use some CPU heavy apps occasionally and would rather have the extra power than the extra battery life.
Yes, clearly PC hardware would be "as horrible now" as it was ten years, since it was clearly Apple who was driving...
* the push for high-performance discrete graphics from 3Dfx, ATI and nVidia. Oh wait, Apple didn't really play a role.
* advancements in CPU architecture. Oh wait, how long did Apple stick with Motorola and IBM, even during Motorola's inept period of being unable to break past 500 Mhz on the G4, or IBM's major issues with heat on the G5?
* AMD's implementation of 64-bit instructions into the x86 architecture. Oh wait, Apple was still using the PowerPC architecture at that time...
* Intel going more with Centrino for power efficiency, and ultimately moving over to Core, Core 2 and their derivatives (and now on to Nehalem).
Apple has certainly contributed in important ways over the last few years, but making statements regarding how far behind PC hardware would be is just ignorant.
Why not? They are fast enough for 90% of consumers starting next year.
The problem is that X86 is a 1970 legacy part with no real 64bit subsystem.
PPC/ARM is the future. Starting next year we will see quod core ARM 2.5ghz. We are talking systems that draws less then 6 watt and cost 300-400 dollars less then an X86 system.
Intel has a gross profit of almost 80% on their processors. AMD has about 40%. ARM license out their processors for about 6 cent per core. That is why a quod core ARM SoC costs 25 dollars. X86 is at least 300-400 dollar for CPU and support chipset.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'd argue that RIM and Nokia have yet to awaken from their slumbers.
johncarync said:
I'd argue that RIM and Nokia have yet to awaken from their slumbers.
Source on that one. I been reading they making an ARM port to handle more tablets. Not server side.
1: is true
2: this is Apple we're talking about we all don't mind paying a bit more
3: it's updated when the Xeons are available..
I believe that Apple got Sandy Bridge ahead of everyone else..
See intel does care about Apples business, thats why there is no intel inside sticker (like all others) on your computer. Apple said NO doing the switch and intel said ok alles klar
Apple really does have more pull in the tech world than you would believe.
ARM is the future for the air/non-pro line call this a shot over the bow
Chris
I think he is right, though, in that component suppliers (Intel, AMD, etc.) were not being driven by PC manufacturers (Dell, the former Compaq, the former IBM PC business, etc.) I think the drivers were more like server manufacturers, perhaps; or opportunities the component manufacturers self-identified based on emerging applications or market trends.
best typo ever!
ROTFLMAOWCT !
rolling on the floor laughing my ass off while crying tears
ROTFLMAOWCT !
rolling on the floor laughing my ass off while crying tears
In my opinion 65 nm is where everything changed. At least in the past 4-5 years.
Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad
nVidia 8800 GT (G92)
ATI HD 3800 Series (55 nm)
Monolithic quad core, AMD Phenom/Opteron
AMD v Intel Power
Just my 2 cents:
I work in the server field and we run hundreds of servers. For years our problem is power consumption and Intel was never up to par with AMD CPUs. This is for several reasons one of them to be as efficient as possible with the power which means as "green" as possible but also to keep our power bills low. This counts for pretty much all Intel Servers, they are more power hungry than AMD CPUs.
If PC manufacturers would start to provide power consumption information on their Desktop machines I am certain that it would clearly show that all AMD desktop machines are far "greener" than any Intel Desktop.
Just my 2 cents:
I work in the server field and we run hundreds of servers. For years our problem is power consumption and Intel was never up to par with AMD CPUs. This is for several reasons one of them to be as efficient as possible with the power which means as "green" as possible but also to keep our power bills low. This counts for pretty much all Intel Servers, they are more power hungry than AMD CPUs.
If PC manufacturers would start to provide power consumption information on their Desktop machines I am certain that it would clearly show that all AMD desktop machines are far "greener" than any Intel Desktop.
Apple may not be the bulk of Intel's business, but it's pretty clear that Apple is viewed by Intel as their premier customer. Intel is concerned about AMD, and looks to Apple for identifying, and often driving, future PC trends. component companies such as Intel do not interact directly with end-users and thus greatly benefit from having customers who can help them get a greater sense of where the driving end-user market is going.