Do you think apple will ever use AMD?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by will waters, Dec 18, 2011.

  1. will waters macrumors regular

    Jul 19, 2011
    Great Britain
    I would quite like to find out, but do you think that apple will ever use AMD CPU's instead of intel, I know they are swithcing to AMD GPU's, but CPU's, as I think that some of the AMD CPU ae more powerfull then the intel for less money!
  2. Mark-Technology macrumors regular

    Nov 25, 2011
    Hearing news about ivy bridge processors all the time and how apple plans to use them next year, I don't see amd CPU's coming in soon; at least not next year.

  3. Freyqq macrumors 601

    Dec 13, 2004
    apple seems to be all about quality. AMD sells some CPUs that are cheap and effective. However, their higher-end stuff isn't as good as comparable intel CPUs.
  4. alphaod macrumors Core


    Feb 9, 2008
    The only reason it's AMD GPUs is because they bought ATi.

    That said, I recall reading AMD is calling it quits on the x86 business? They can't compete with the powerhouse that is Intel.
  5. yousifabdullah macrumors regular

    Jul 19, 2011
    As far as I know, AMD is looking to rule the mobile market, a place where Intel called it quits a long time ago (Intel XScale, now part of Marvell). alphaod is also correct that Apple is using AMD GPUs only because AMD bought ATi. Many Macs had ATI graphics back in the day, too. Not sure if we'll see Nvidia in the future, but it's almost a safe bet to say that we won't see a Mac equipped with an AMD CPU. With Intel Thunderbolt on the uprise, it only makes sense for Apple to continue to support Intel. Although, anything (and nothing) can happen.
  6. yomibro macrumors regular

    Feb 24, 2008
    I wouldn't mind having an AMD Phenom X6 in the Mac Mini at the same price point (or slightly cheaper) but not in a MacBook Pro.
  7. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    AMD CPUs are quite poor unfortunately, they cannot really compete very well.
    THe new Bulldozer maybe decent enough for its price point in multithreaded situations but in general usage and gaming it is quite bad and the heat it produces is a lot. They only make sense in cheaper Desktop rigs.
    As Apple only has the Mac Pro and that is quite highend there is no reason to go anyhting but Intel.
    AMD CPUs just aren't good enough. I think Apple would switch if they were but that power consumption with that poor performance is only justified by the low price and that is not what Apple is aming for.

    A Mac Mini uses Notebook CPUs the iMacs use 65W CPUs AM can only beat them by using a lot more heat.
  8. w00t951 macrumors 68000


    Jan 6, 2009
    Pittsburgh, PA
    AMD = Cheap.

    Intel = Powerful & High Quality.

    The i7 Sandy Bridges are far superior to the AMD Bulldozer series - They give off less heat, take in less power, and give more processing power. Regardless of what you may read on the specs sheets (4GHz! 6 cores!) Sandy Bridge is currently superior to the Bulldozer series.

    The next gen Ivy Bridge processors will most likely increase the gap, and then the 2013 Haswell processors will just be made of pure awesome. I don't expect AMD to keep in this CPU race for very long.
  9. Swain macrumors member

    Nov 6, 2011
    Would you mind telling me more about those Haswell processors?
  10. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    There isn't much know about Haswell yet and a lot of the information Intel released has been misinterpreted quite a bit in the web.
    It is still 1 year out mainstream TDP classes will shrink to 10-20W.
    There is little know yet. Stacked memory is planned for at least some models, apperantely they mean to implement transactional memory which can help with multithreading or be really bad and expensive in runtime too.
    For the most part it will be IB with a few improvements in GPU and they want to focus more on the 10-20W range, which probably means that is where they want to sell the bulk of CPUs.
    There is also MCH integration for Ultrabooks on the plan.
    One chip instead of 2 makes the logic board smaller, more space for the battery.

    Not all that amazing but another improvement. Some people just get overexcited about the misinterpretation of some numbers like the 20 times decrease of connected standby time which just means there is some new system for a limited wakeup that Sandy Bridge just doesn't support. SB wakes up fully or stays asleep and Haswell will have some in between thing that probably just wakes up part some necessary stuff to fetch some mails ring some alarms and go back to sleep without waking up the whole system.

    That is probably meant to blur the line to tablet hardware which is usually always on and when in standby can still ring and tell you "you got mail". A Notebook that is asleep currently cannot do it or only with a huge impact for battery because it constantly needs to wake fully.
  11. 0000757 macrumors 68040

    Dec 16, 2011
    AMD makes far better lower-end processors, and since they own ATi, the integrated GPUs are marginally better than Intel's, but Apple is about quality > price. I'm currently on an AMD laptop, and it performs well, better than the Pentium competitor. I think what AMD should do is move into the mobile space, providing processors for phones/tablets/netbooks/etc., or shift it's focus more to ATi, which is A LOT better than NVIDIA IMO.
  12. praetorx macrumors regular

    Apr 7, 2010
    Eventually yes but I believe it may take a while, not for a technology breakthrough on AMDs part but people's perception to change.
    People view the Intel/Mac relationship as "the norm" because it "always" has been like this since Apple adopted the x86 architecture in favor of PowerPC.

    It's almost the same as associating Apple with high-quality products although that isn't the case with all products.

Share This Page