who here will spring for the MacBook Pro/other Ultrabook?
Who here really cares that much about CPU performance?
Who here really cares that much about CPU performance?
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.
If Apple goes AMD...
- Thread starter TSE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Goes AMD in what? Meaning in the Air you'd go pro
,in the Pro you'd go Air?
What if they went AMD across the board? You'd leave Apple?
Could happen, It is my belief that
is more than a little upset over INTEL's pushing "ultra books", that said I expect game changing Airs in the future, at least on 's part to, make a machine that can't be touched by the copy cats, as well as INTEL's crap integrated graphics One of the many reasons We love our 2010 11" Airs with the NVidia graphics!
,in the Pro you'd go Air?What if they went AMD across the board? You'd leave Apple?
Could happen, It is my belief that
is more than a little upset over INTEL's pushing "ultra books", that said I expect game changing Airs in the future, at least on 's part to, make a machine that can't be touched by the copy cats, as well as INTEL's crap integrated graphics One of the many reasons We love our 2010 11" Airs with the NVidia graphics!
I would consider AMD. I know they haven't been nearly as successful as Intel especially in the past few years, however they're still a solid company. They may be a definite #2 but they can still make a good product. As long as their ULV processors match up similarly to Intel, I think they'll be fine. Lots of people consider them the end of all mankind as we know it, but I don't think most people would notice at all. If the performance matches up with Ivy Bridge ULV's and people still complain, it's more of a vanity name issue than anything. Obviously if the specs were well off Ivy Bridge, I'd reconsider.
What would concern me about AMD though is whether it was an indication that Apple is headed to a cheaper route for the MBA. If they're willing to go to a lower priced & slightly lower quality processor, what other parts would go low-cost next? I'm willing to pay the current price for the MBA. If they're really set on bringing in lower price points, the quality of the build and parts could go down as well. That's obviously a worst-case scenario but possible. That's not the path that I want to see the MBA go down.
What would concern me about AMD though is whether it was an indication that Apple is headed to a cheaper route for the MBA. If they're willing to go to a lower priced & slightly lower quality processor, what other parts would go low-cost next? I'm willing to pay the current price for the MBA. If they're really set on bringing in lower price points, the quality of the build and parts could go down as well. That's obviously a worst-case scenario but possible. That's not the path that I want to see the MBA go down.
Last edited:
If Apple is going to play the value segment in the laptop space, it will have to get under $1K entry level, and sourcing AMD would be one way to get there. With PC OEMs finally catching up in the Industrial Design, and Win 8 coming out, Apple's gross margins will erode, and I can see the firm going for more market share as this competitive threat emerges.
Gotcha now
wouldn't have a problem with it.
Still have a old Windows machine I built with a single core FX Chip (3700)with 16 GB Ram, and 2- 10,000 RPM WD Raptors, still faster then anything, and now learning Ubuntu Precise Pangolin on it.
Used to build PC's with nothing but AMD Chips, never had a problem
----------
jgc
macrumors newbie
What would concern me about AMD though is whether it was an indication that Apple is headed to a cheaper route for the MBA. If they're willing to go to a lower priced & slightly lower quality processor, what other parts would go low-cost next? I'm willing to pay the current price for the MBA. If they're really set on bringing in lower price points, the quality of the build and parts could go down as well. That's obviously a worst-case scenario but possible. That's not the path that I want to see the MBA go down.
Dont think thats going to happen, the MBA is a cash cow, why take a chance?
wouldn't have a problem with it.
Still have a old Windows machine I built with a single core FX Chip (3700)with 16 GB Ram, and 2- 10,000 RPM WD Raptors, still faster then anything, and now learning Ubuntu Precise Pangolin on it.
Used to build PC's with nothing but AMD Chips, never had a problem
----------
jgc
macrumors newbie
What would concern me about AMD though is whether it was an indication that Apple is headed to a cheaper route for the MBA. If they're willing to go to a lower priced & slightly lower quality processor, what other parts would go low-cost next? I'm willing to pay the current price for the MBA. If they're really set on bringing in lower price points, the quality of the build and parts could go down as well. That's obviously a worst-case scenario but possible. That's not the path that I want to see the MBA go down.
Dont think thats going to happen, the MBA is a cash cow, why take a chance?
Last edited:
I actually hope they put a dedicated GPU.
Im not a huge fan of the integrated (HD3000).
My guess on the next gen would be a Intel HD 4000.
I hope that would be better than the 3000.
Im not a huge fan of the integrated (HD3000).
My guess on the next gen would be a Intel HD 4000.
I hope that would be better than the 3000.
I hope so...
Even though I do not do hardcore stuff with my Air, I would wish for a better GPU.
Even if that sacrifices the battery, I would love to have one.
I mean you can always use gfxcardstatus
Apples target market has no clue. Apple sells the fantasy. The simplicity. Apples masterful marketing mesmerizes people better than hypnotism
Address the lower end (without losing your shirt) via this
AMD Trinity based MBA 11 and 13" models.
4GB of RAM. No Retina display. 64GB SSD
11" = $849
13" = $949
Higher Intel based options would have Retina displays and offer a minimum of 128GB of SSD storage.
AMD Trinity based MBA 11 and 13" models.
4GB of RAM. No Retina display. 64GB SSD
11" = $849
13" = $949
Higher Intel based options would have Retina displays and offer a minimum of 128GB of SSD storage.
Steve jobs said that intel's graphics "suck", amd's graphics don't suck
Hi Everyone,
I think Apple and AMD already happened. Why else would Intel be paying everyone to gang up on Apple?
To be more specific, I think evidence suggests that Steve Jobs made the decision to go AMD back in 2011, and Intel (in character) promptly retaliated by paying all of Apple's competitors to make Ultraclones.
Here's some stuff to back this up:
Read Steve's biography. Steve was obviously upset about Intel's processors way back in 2011. On page 493 of his biography, Steve Jobs said that Intel's graphics "suck", and that "we've been telling them [Intel] that for years."
Steve also said that Intel can't change. They're like a "steamship".
Ouch!
My jaw literally dropped when I read what Steve had to say about Intel. I think Steve's very blunt complaint about Intel in his biography means that Steve made a decision to plan on using AMD processors in 2011, and Intel promptly set up the Ultrabook Fund as retaliation - to basically pump 600-million dollars in financial steroids to Apple's competitors.
Intel got in antitrust trouble for doing precisely this sort of predatory payment scheme/manipulation in the past:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/technology/parloff_intel.fortune/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/100804inteldo.pdf
There you go. When Intel starts paying everyone financial steroids to take down a singled-out computer manufacturer, it means that that singled-out manufacturer got too friendly with AMD. Remember Gateway?
Does anyone else have a better explanation for why Intel launched such a strange fund to help all the PC makers attack and copy Intel's exclusive customer, Apple?
Hi Everyone,
I think Apple and AMD already happened. Why else would Intel be paying everyone to gang up on Apple?
To be more specific, I think evidence suggests that Steve Jobs made the decision to go AMD back in 2011, and Intel (in character) promptly retaliated by paying all of Apple's competitors to make Ultraclones.
Here's some stuff to back this up:
Read Steve's biography. Steve was obviously upset about Intel's processors way back in 2011. On page 493 of his biography, Steve Jobs said that Intel's graphics "suck", and that "we've been telling them [Intel] that for years."
Steve also said that Intel can't change. They're like a "steamship".
Ouch!
My jaw literally dropped when I read what Steve had to say about Intel. I think Steve's very blunt complaint about Intel in his biography means that Steve made a decision to plan on using AMD processors in 2011, and Intel promptly set up the Ultrabook Fund as retaliation - to basically pump 600-million dollars in financial steroids to Apple's competitors.
Intel got in antitrust trouble for doing precisely this sort of predatory payment scheme/manipulation in the past:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/technology/parloff_intel.fortune/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/100804inteldo.pdf
There you go. When Intel starts paying everyone financial steroids to take down a singled-out computer manufacturer, it means that that singled-out manufacturer got too friendly with AMD. Remember Gateway?
Does anyone else have a better explanation for why Intel launched such a strange fund to help all the PC makers attack and copy Intel's exclusive customer, Apple?
Paying 600-MILLION to help Apple's Competitors. Why?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11380996/1/intel-doubling-down-on-ultrabooks.html
600-million dollars!
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11380996/1/intel-doubling-down-on-ultrabooks.html
600-million dollars!
This post actually makes a lot of sense, still isn't concrete, but really put a lot of things into perspective. Thank you!
That would be actually cool to see.
A G4 or G5 processor MBA
Nope. 10 year old architecture would not be cool.
PPC had it's run and was great for it's time. No chance of it happening anymore.
GPU performance is on average 20% better on AMD.
CPU performance is HALF
Battery is marginally better.
For me it is a no brainer. Intel for me. Intel is kicking the crap out of AMD cpu wise and I need CPU for transcoding.
Besides, 20% faster GPU than "pretty slow" is still pretty slow. If HD4000 isn't good enough for you, i doubt trinity will be either. Get a discrete GPU.
HALF the CPU speed is a big drop.
CPU performance is HALF
Battery is marginally better.
For me it is a no brainer. Intel for me. Intel is kicking the crap out of AMD cpu wise and I need CPU for transcoding.
Besides, 20% faster GPU than "pretty slow" is still pretty slow. If HD4000 isn't good enough for you, i doubt trinity will be either. Get a discrete GPU.
HALF the CPU speed is a big drop.
What he said... plus I doubt that A10 can drive retina display.
Wanna game? Get something with discrete graphics as 20% better than crap is still crap, as it was already mentioned.
Edit: "Battery is marginally better." is not true if you encode on it, as it will take 2xtimes more of 100% load to encode the same thing. So I'd say that for limited tasks with high-workloads, intel shall perform better in terms of battery.
The A10 supports Displayport 1.2 For a max resolution of 3840 x 2400
As for encoding AMD can use OpenCL or their VCE
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5835/testing-opencl-accelerated-handbrakex264-with-amds-trinity-apu
I'm not seeing Trinity CPU at half Intel according to benchmarks
It's really going to come down to price