backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by brokenaxiom.. on Apr 28 at 11:04 AM


Apple is reportedly looking at AMD's 32nm products
Could Apple be ready to embrace the perennial underdog in the processors wars?

When Apple made the switch to Intel processors back in 2006, many in the Apple community were worried about what the future would be like for the the Mac platform. Apple owners didn't need to worry, however, as the move to Intel processors bought faster performance across the board and opened up Mac desktops and notebooks to faster refreshes -- not to mention that Mac computer sales have boomed since the adoption of Intel chips.

So all would seem to be well with the Apple-Intel relationship -- well, maybe not. In news that may come straight of left field for some, Apple Insider is reporting that Apple is in serious talks with AMD to provide processors for its Mac notebook and desktop platforms.

According to Apple Insider, “Representatives for the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based AMD have recently been seen on Apple's Commuter Coach buses, and executives for the chipmaker have been spotted on their way out of meetings with members of Apple's top brass.” The Apple-centric website goes on to add, "The meetings have reportedly included briefings by AMD that have since enabled Apple to begin working with AMD processors in its labs as part of an initiative to position the chips inside some of the company's forthcoming products."

According to DailyTech's own sources, Apple is said to be looking at a number of upcoming AMD technologies including the Fusion platform which will meld a microprocessor and GPU functions into a single die. The first 32nm Fusion processors will feature a Llano APU (up to four Phenom II core plus an integrated DX11 graphics core). These processors will debut in 2011 for mainstream notebook and desktop platforms.

Where does this leave Intel as a chip supplier for Apple? If Apple Insider's report and our sources are correct, it's quite possible that Intel may maintain its position as a supplier for high-end chips for Apple's MacBook Pro and iMac platforms. However, lower-level platforms like the MacBook, Mac mini, and the Apple TV “hobby” could be prime targets for AMD processors.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Could make a lot of sense...
By HotFoot on 4/16/2010 1:42:10 PM , Rating: 5
Based on the IGP capability alone. One thing Apple does is make a very popular long-battery-life notebook. While I can appreciate the move to put the IGP on-package and eventually on-die, this currently is a strike against Intel in my mind, as their IGP is less desirable than competing products. CPU+IGP put together, AMD might very well have the better product for the next generation of notebooks.




RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 1:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
Well, someone has to save AMD might as well let Apple try to.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By RjBass on 4/16/2010 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 4
Save AMD? Seems to me they are doing just fine on their own now. Last quarter they showed a profit. Granted some of that came from the Intel settlement, but they are on the road back up. I would imagine this next quarter will also be in the black, especially considering how well the ATI side of the business is doing these days.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 2:05:42 PM , Rating: 1
It took a lawsuit and them buying failing ATI to post a profit.

They haven't produced anything beyond basic entry level chips for the past 3 or 4 yrs.

ATI can only do so much, but I would not be surprised to see them stop producing processors in favor of integrated CPU+IGP or just GPU chips.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2010 2:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Bulldozer should put AMD back in the game.

Just producing GPU's like NVIDIA would be a big mistake especially since AMD and INTEL are close to closing NVIDIA out of the motherboard chipset business. Other than Apple I dont see people buying NVIDIA based mobos. ION is cool but not enough. Also with Integrated GPU's inside the CPU package its only a matter of time before NVIDIA is in a world of hurt. Cant see any reason to purchase an NVIDIA chipset when you buy either an Intel or AMD cpu soon. ATI/AMD's GPU refresh is coming later this year and if it topples FERMI which it should in performance and heat then there's more trouble for NVIDIA. I'm not sure how good FERMI is selling either or production but I suspect it isn't good. PS3 sales are good but it wouldn't be enough for NVIDIA.

A few good moves by AMD and NVIDIA becomes the next VIA/S3. They wont survive with a giant monolithic GPU to save them since AMD/ATI are producing GPU's nearly as good that are much cooler and cheaper to produce. If the GPU refresh is a small core hard scaler then its major hurt time for NVIDIA. If AMD is able to gain NVIDIA's market share then AMD could be in a very good position.

That is until AMD thinks they won the GPU war and find out Intel is still trying to develop a real GPU.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 3:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
Don't put all your hopes and dreams in a single CPU core type.

AMD learned this the hard way while they thought they could beat Intel with the Phenom line (horrible failure). Do you remember how horrible the first iteration was?

AMD needs to focus less on CPU and go with integration. If it wasn't for the settlement, they would still be posting heavy losses. (They received 365 million in settlement in Q1) making their profit 257 million.

Without out that, they would have had yet another loss even with their ATI line finally eclipsing Nvidia for performance.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By gamerk2 on 4/16/2010 3:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Fusion won't be enough to drive any serious GPU usage. Rasterization is a process that does not favor a CPU-like architecture, period. Nevermind all the cache/register thrashing moving Rasterization to the CPU would do [Not to mention the memory interconnects and the like].

Bulldozers GPU abilities will be limited to drawing a desktop screen. Thats about it as far as I'm concerned.

And as noted above, take away the money earned from the Intel lawsuit, and AMD still lost money.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By just4U on 4/16/2010 4:15:00 PM , Rating: 3
Amd is doing things right though.

They have a solid integrated graphics solution.
Decent proccessors.
Are making their own chipsets.
A overall excellent grahpics devision.

I don't know about you guys but I build systems using hardware from Nvidia, Intel and AMD and the only complaint I can really label AMD with is they don't have the speed crown. That's a catch22 though to since if their products would be priced higher. Ofcourse you'd think that with that competition Intel would lower their overall prices (which they did at times .. but it was very temporary so not as much of a boon as one might think)


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By just4U on 4/16/2010 8:08:47 PM , Rating: 5
That's the whole thing Anox... It's a misconception to think that those proccessors AMD currently has are horrible. They are NOT. Sure the numbers don't always stress how good they are but when your on those systems ... There isn't much difference at all.

My main system Is a I7 and secondary is the older PIIX4 920 and getting on either system is great. I don't go oh .. why so slow because it's not slow at all. Also currently I am building a cheap Athlon2 250 for a buddy. That stupid thing is fast.. and it's only a $60 Cpu. Sure it won't win the benchmark awards but were not talking the old days where a cpu that was low priced was so crippled most of us would scream at it's lacklustre performance.

Those days are dead and gone.

I think overall the misconception comes from the lacklustre performance of the original Phenoms in comparison to the core2. While they may have been faster then the X2 (debatable) there was indeed a very noticable hit in how a system performed. Shoot it didn't even seem like a upgrade for many.


By ImSpartacus on 4/17/2010 7:55:54 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Low-end CPUs really pull some punches these days.

In that respect, AMD is fine. I'm still an Intel fanboy, but AMD is not dead by any means.

Hardware is just pushing so far ahead of software. We're seeing it all over the mainstream consumer market.
Netbooks? Cheap processors run computers that are "good enough" and they are just that.
Gaming GPUs? Consoles are holding PC gaming back; anti-aliasing and 1080p+ gaming are no longer for the rich.
Multi-core processors? Aside from workstation-esque tasks and a few niche multimedia work, 2 cores are plenty.

So, AMD will be fine holding down the budget end of the market.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2010 11:15:46 AM , Rating: 4
AMD's processors are not horrible. They are merely not as fast as Intel's. But for the money you can buy them for, they're a great deal.

And I'm typing this from a C2Q machine.

My next upgrade is a long ways off since this computer does everything I need it to but the next thing I do upgrade will be the GPU to an ATI DX11 card. I don't want an Nvidia space heater.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By AssBall on 4/17/2010 12:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
Why did this get downrated? The AMD 3.4Ghz Phenom X4's I built cheaply for my Brother and Mom run circles around my overclocked C2D. They are great processors and costed like 100 bucks. Their chipsets, cards, and integrated graphics are fantastic too.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By cmdrdredd on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Alexstarfire on 4/18/2010 2:14:29 AM , Rating: 3
I think the overclocking headroom is changing though. The Phenom II X6 1090T has been OCed to 4.2Ghz on air cooling. That's at least equal to anything from Intel. Anyway, it just depends one what you want it for. A C2D is still amazing at just about everything. Only reason I even look at new CPUs is because of all the video conversions I do. With about 500 GB of video I have to convert it's simply going to take forever. My C2D 6400 isn't nearly the fastest. Can't even OC as far as I want to since the motherboard tops out at about 395 FSB.

Anyway, point being that pretty much any chip you buy now is going to last a long time, probably longer than any other component in the computer.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Calin on 4/19/2010 6:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
For video conversion with the CPU, a native 4-core processor will beat the hell of whatever increase of performance you get out of overclocking (AMD quad core as well as Intel quad-core, with Intel giving more performance at more $ and AMD typically giving more performance for few $).


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By just4U on 4/18/2010 12:08:20 PM , Rating: 3
Motherboard selections are a helluva lot cheaper as well. So add that into there to. It's a shame that DDR2 prices have skyrocketed to near parity with the cheapest DDR3 offerings. because that was another avenue of savings in their favor.

Overclocking isn't what it used to be.. Now it seems more like the expensive side of things (rather then getting cheap extra performance) as many of us go with exotic setups to attain the highest overclocks. On average tho from what I can tell.. most cpu's intel/amd have no problems hitting 3.8GHZ. After that you got to work for it. Plus.. we only make up a small segment of the computer industry. What 3%? So it's a non issue for most.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Calin on 4/19/2010 6:27:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Their CPU line is still horrible, and many of the Intel's older Conroe are still as good if not better than AMD's current line up. They are still a full generation behind. Going to be two shortly.


Yes, this is true. However, they are certainly price-and-performance competitive in low-end and mid-range, and this share of the market is BIG. They would certainly be much better with a presence at the top, or (even better) selling for server/workstation market (where they only have a couple of wins in a couple of benchmarks against Intel), and they would be much better with enough GPU production from TSMC, but they don't do bad at all.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By teldar on 4/16/2010 7:16:56 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe you should check into that a little. Settlement payments aren't typically included as operating profits.
Apparently they made a profit from business.
Not from settlements.
The $325 was from GF, as well, NOT Intel.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By wifiwolf on 4/20/2010 11:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
AMD will put a real gpu in that chip. Yes, it won't be a 5870 in it but I'd expect something like the 5650. Besides, they can improve it from that depending only on TDP.
As for graphics division, I suspect AMD could have sold much more if it wasn't nvidias's bluff anounncing a chip they didn't have yet sampled let alone mass producing. I suspect that won't work twice.
Another thing that has been silent is the renaming scheme - we are aware of it, but the average Joe (80-90% buyers) just buys what is shiny enough for his eyes and fits his wallet.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By gralex on 4/16/2010 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Mitch! Dude! Ok, slowly now... deep breaths:-)

It's gonna be nVidia's "Summer of Love"

Tegra 2? MBP refresh with (pretty much) Optimus? CS5 designed (Mercury Playback Engine) to take advantage of Cuda? Flash 10.1? GPU accelerated FF4 & IE9? C'mon man, you can see the whole thing is gonna snowball from a mile away! And I can't WAIT to see what new goodies ATI is gonna bring to the table...

I'm assuming you're a gamer and can understand your Fermi-frustration, but you don't want nVidia hurting. And you especially don't want them out-of-business!

"Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering."
Beware of the Darkside...


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2010 9:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I really wish we Matrox, S3, 3DFX, Number 9, Trident, and a few others I cant remember were still around.

Some of the items you mentioned may make a difference to us but the average consumer will have no knowledge of them. Ask you neighbor about cuda and he will think your talking about a classic car.

Here is something that if its true will make you say HOLY SHT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaam5mwIR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Sw3dnu8q8

Probably an article for anandtech in there.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By gralex on 4/18/2010 6:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
You had me @3DFX! Voodoo seems like a life-time ago...

Anyway! Since you made things a bit clearer, I can't really argue. I guess there's a good a chance as any that nVidia could eventually go belly-up.

All I'm saying is that this Summer could be a "tipping point" (I'm already starting to hate that expression) for the GPGPU (and that one). It looks like all the Majors want a piece of the action.

And I'm sure that one thing your neighbor DOES know is that he can come running to YOU for computer advice. So promise me this... If he ever comes up and asks, "Hey Mitch! Is it true that Graphic-cards have like, hundreds of cores?"... just say, "Bastard" under your breath and think of me:-)


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Calin on 4/19/2010 6:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Matrox still makes video-card related technologies (like the fiber-optic connected video card - something like 1 line of PCI-E over 250m of optic fiber). They also introduced the Dual-Head (two video outputs) and Triple-Head technologies, and so on.
However, their video card production is close to non-existant (in terms of ATI/NVidia numbers).


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By greylica on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Mitch101 on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By teldar on 4/16/2010 7:09:09 PM , Rating: 5
You're really kinda clueless about this, aren't you.
They have produced some extremely competitive server processors for years, and ATI was so failing, it almost sent AMD under to buy them.

Where do you get your facts from?


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By borismkv on 4/19/2010 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
AMD bought ATI almost 5 years ago. That and good ole Hector running the company into the ground (coupled with Intel getting their heads out of their butts with Core2) put AMD in some tough times. They lagged behind in speed and struggled with the costs of acquiring ATI for a long time before they actually saw any benefits.

AMD definitely doesn't need Apple to "save" them. Their stock is up 300% over the past year. The ATI purchase was a stupid idea for the short run, but they are finally doing something good with it and it's paying off. (Now I just wish I'd actually had any money at all to purchase AMD stock with back in 2007 when it was hovering near 1 dollar a share).


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Samus on 4/22/2010 2:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they are in talks over GPU's, not IGP's or CPU's.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By reader1 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Bateluer on 4/16/2010 4:12:10 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, no. I have no desire to start paying 500 dollars for mainstream CPUs again and 150 for entry level CPUs because Intel is the only supplier again. Apple users may be content to pay double the cost, but that 4% of the population is just that, 4%.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
You are an idiot of the highest caliber, next to Pirks of course.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 6:07:34 PM , Rating: 3
And no, fuck you. KtnxBAI


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/16/2010 5:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, Pirks is better. Pirks makes sensible posts worthy of a 5 every now and then. This jerkoff has never said anything worthwhile.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 6:07:13 PM , Rating: 1
No, he isn't better.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/16/2010 6:37:01 PM , Rating: 1
Care to give a reason? I already explained my reasoning...


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 11:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
His response to your post says it all.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/17/2010 4:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
And you will always be a loser.......so....your point?


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Spuke on 4/16/2010 7:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes I am better 'cause I have quite a few 5 rated posts unlike reader1, so you better shut your stinkhole, alright?
Sometimes, you guys just say some classic shit.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Spuke on 4/16/2010 7:05:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes I am better 'cause I have quite a few 5 rated posts unlike reader1, so you better shut your stinkhole, alright?
LOL again! Can we get this put at the bottom of the Dailytech pages like the hard drive porn quote?


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/17/2010 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 5
It's bad enough we have to see his bullshit in the posts, we don't need it fucking showing up at the bottom of the page on a regular basis.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By foolsgambit11 on 4/16/2010 2:00:31 PM , Rating: 5
AMD is going to have to do better with power management if they want to support Apple's "very popular long-battery-life notebook" segment. AMD makes great chips, and has a history of innovation, but Intel has had them beat on power management for a while.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By smackababy on 4/16/2010 2:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Their newer generation of GPUs are doing very well in the power management aspect. Maybe they can borrow from them?

Intel has been leaps and bounds ahead of AMD since Conroe and unless AMD can come up with its own Conroe-esque chip, they will remain behind.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By just4U on 4/16/2010 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 5
Not really leaps and bounds ahead of AMD right now.. Lets face facts, Anyone who is on a Phenom2, Athlon2, Core2 8/9X series cpu are not missing out really from those on the I3,I5, or I7.

It's sort of a lull period where speeds and such are not going up but rather sideways. Most people would not be going .. "why so slow?" no matter which of those cpu's they have. Their all good.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By StevoLincolnite on 4/16/2010 3:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
AMD is going to have to do better with power management if they want to support Apple's "very popular long-battery-life notebook" segment.


Not as much as you think it is, the power consumption of the processor would more than likely be offset by the more power saving GPU's/Chipsets that AMD has.

People fail to take note on the power consumption of the entire platform, it's nice that an Intel chip might consume 20 watts less power but if the GPU and chipset consumes an extra 50 watts, the AMD platform would be better off in that instance.

Not to mention that AMD has historically had significantly better IGP's in every single aspect over Intel Decelerators anyway.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Alexstarfire on 4/16/2010 11:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
So their newest IGP is almost equal to AMD's old one? I don't think that means Intel is winning.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Calin on 4/19/2010 6:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
The newest AMD IGP is almost equal to AMD's old IGP, and Intel just went from "very good processors with sucky IGP" to "very good processors with competitive IGP" (AMD might have the upper hand in driver quality, and IGP and competitive shouldn't be used in the same phrase though).
Remember that Intel's IGP just went from 2 frames a second to 20+ frames a second, while AMD's IGP is still at 20 frames a second like the previous generation (and Intel has on processor IGP, which could lead to lower platform costs).


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By StevoLincolnite on 4/17/2010 1:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wake up Stevo, wake up and smell the ashes: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/4 Because of these graphs I think AMD has absolutely no chance to get its CPUs inside Macs.


Pirks, no where in my previous post did I state anything about Apple or the Mac, so why you pulled that age old argument I have no idea.

So here it goes...
1) I don't give a rats about Apple or it's products.
2) I don't care if AMD gets into a Mac. (Would be good for them to get the income boost though so they can engineer better parts for the PC).
3) You are telling me logic? You are kidding right? You ARE Pirks, Logic doesn't even enter the argument with you.

That review is also comparing a relatively old IGP against a new one, hardly a fair comparison, and from experience Intel IGP's are ERRATIC with there performance. (Google the definition, would you? Would hate to have to explain it.)

quote:
Why would Jobs buy CPUs that consume more power while being equipped with the same GPU performance wise? Not quite logical, don't you think Stevo?


Simple, Power consumption and costing points, Apple has never had the most powerful hardware, this is a known fact, so going with AMD probably won't hurt there "Reputation" in performance anyway.

For the Record I love AMD as a company, I build most of my systems around there platforms because they provide great performance for the price, and with GPU computing becoming the main thing these days, that's where the demand for performance is likely to end up.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Pirks on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By brandonicus on 4/17/2010 11:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
If apple is planning on getting CPUs with on chip graphics (like the new intel one you mentioned earlier) from AMD then I am sure it is not going to involve the AMD IGP from your posted link. That AMD IGP, 790GX I think it was, is much older than the new intel chip...and the intel chip barely beats it. I'm sure AMD has something up their sleeves if apple is considering them.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By JarredWalton on 4/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Alexstarfire on 4/18/2010 4:39:03 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't AMD winning in the power consumption department for chipset and IGP?


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By sans2212 on 4/20/2010 1:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, I don't expect AMD will offer a competitive products. AMD products are rubbish as always.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Calin on 4/19/2010 6:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention that AMD has historically had significantly better IGP's in every single aspect over Intel Decelerators anyway.


Up until now, that is. Intel's fastest in-processor GPU is on equal footing with previous generation AMD's integrated GPU, and newest generation AMD GPU is just like the old generation


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By yomamafor1 on 4/16/2010 2:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
However, using AMD's IGP would mean using AMD's CPUs. Apple wouldn't switch from Intel CPUs to AMD CPUs just because of Intel's reputation is historically better than AMD's. The public's perception of Intel's products is also better than AMD's products.

A more logical explanation is that Apple is looking into replacing the current Nvidia discreet graphics card with ATI. After all, AMD's DX11 cards has a better reputation at the moment.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By stimudent on 4/16/2010 4:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Apple went up 1 notch on the respectability scale.
It will be nice to see Apple not dealing exclusively with a supplier that is constantly being investigated for ethics violations.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2010 9:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
You know Apple can only whore out the whole "battery life" banner for so long. Fact is they are now looking to use a cheaper slower CPU from a budget processor company in something that is priced as a premium unit. Oh and will the savings of going to AMD be passed down to the consumer ? Ha ! We know the answer to that.


RE: Could make a lot of sense...
By Ammohunt on 4/17/2010 1:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention Apple could convince AMD to produce chips exclusive to them since they fab their own and would be more willing to compete with Intel in that fashion. Since currently the only real difference between a compariable PC laptop and a Mac laptop is OS X. That for me(and alot of others) isn't near enough to warrant the premium they want.


Eh?
By Spivonious on 4/16/2010 1:55:22 PM , Rating: 1
Intel has the performance crown, and Apple sells "luxury" computers. Why wouldn't they go with the performance leader?

I think this is just fake news to increase AMD's share price.




RE: Eh?
By Aikouka on 4/16/2010 2:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not 100% sure if the mobile world directly mirrors the DIY desktop world, but I think any PC builder knows that if you want to build a rather cheap and decent PC, you usually build an AMD machine simply because the components end up being a lot cheaper than Intel offerings. If you want a higher end machine, chances are you'd build an Intel-based PC.

Could Apple be taking this same approach to building their laptops? I know people like to say that one thing Apple loves more than itself is its profit margins, so if you used cheaper components, you could theoretically reap higher margins per unit sold.

Seems plausible to me.


RE: Eh?
By djc208 on 4/16/2010 9:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have it right. Run AMD chips in the low end hardware and you get a decent CPU and a better integrated GPU in a cheaper package. They can keep prices the same and cut their production costs.

Apple doesn't do things so you the consumer wins. It's all about selling the dream, not value.


RE: Eh?
By Smartless on 4/16/2010 2:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
You know all this talk about Intel and AMD but... I wonder what Nvidia thinks about all of this? Apple has been exclusively Nvidia though ATI has posted better video cards of late. Are low-end Macs running Intel onboard video or Nvidia? Either way, AMD/ATI would most likely affect Nvidia more than Intel.


RE: Eh?
By vanka on 4/16/2010 5:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple has been exclusively Nvidia

Apple had used mostly Nvidia graphics over the years, but they usually did have some ATI graphics available.

Currently all versions of MacBooks & the Mac Mini use only Nvidia graphics chips. But with the iMacs things are a little different; all but the lowest cost model use ATI graphics. Similarly, the MacPro offers a choice of either 1-4 Nvidia GeForce GT 120's or a single ATI Radeon HD 4870.


Apple Considering AMD Chips...
By lukasbradley on 4/16/2010 1:54:38 PM , Rating: 5
...To Make Intel Believe Apple Considering AMD Chips




By adiposity on 4/16/2010 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Report: Apple pretending they are Considering AMD Chips to get better prices from Intel




Don't expect cheaper Apples
By monkeyman1140 on 4/16/2010 5:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
While the new AMD CPUs are much cheaper, I'm sure Apple is pocketing the price differential rather than passing the savings to the customer.




RE: Don't expect cheaper Apples
By brokenaxiom on 4/16/2010 7:06:48 PM , Rating: 3
How else would they make iProfit?


By nofumble62 on 4/17/2010 1:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
We all know how it went.




By Cheesew1z69 on 4/18/2010 12:14:24 AM , Rating: 3
And times are different now, now that Intel is known for it's tactics to get companies to continue to use them...


Why not...and it's about stinkin' time!
By chunkymonster on 4/16/2010 2:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
When Mac jumped over to Intel, they abandoned the hardware that made them unique to begin with. Now the only real thing Mac's have going for them is the OS. Whether they use Intel or AMD hardware makes no difference.

Given AMD's price/performance, and the now available 6 core Phenom's, I can only say...IT'S ABOUT TIME!




By themaster08 on 4/16/2010 3:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given AMD's price/performance, and the now available 6 core Phenom's, I can only say...IT'S ABOUT TIME!

It wouldn't make any difference. If Apple got AMD processors cheaper, they would still charge the same price for their computers. It would just be another subsidy on top of already highly subsidised hardware.

I didn't think 6-core Phenoms were available yet. If so, they're not here in the UK. Intel released a 6-core processor not too long ago though.


EFI bios for AMD CPU's
By vailr on 4/16/2010 3:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK, there's no current AMD motherboards that have an EFI type of bios, currently used in all Apple Intel CPU computers. Would an EFI bios be something that would need to be licensed from Intel? Or did Intel donate that idea to the public domain?




RE: EFI bios for AMD CPU's
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 4:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
The Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is a specification that defines a software interface between an operating system and platform firmware. EFI is a much larger, more complex,[1] OS-like[2]:4 replacement for the older BIOS firmware interface present in all IBM PC-compatible personal computers.[2] The EFI specification was originally developed by Intel, and is now managed by the Unified EFI Forum.


So Apple has pissed off Intel
By echtogammut on 4/16/2010 5:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Back when they left IBM, the reason they left wasn't because IBM couldn't produce a processor for them, IBM denied they could make them a processor that met their specs because they were tired of dealing with Apple. Apple would send IBM a list specs for a processor to IBM, then IBM would fab that processor for them and make a fab run; Apple would then change their mind about the processor specs and leave IBM sitting with thousands of un-shippable units. After having this happen several times, combined with the relatively low volume of sales with Apple, IBM just told them they were having problems making multi-core processors (all the while make 10+ core processors for their own servers and console systems). Not being able to get what they wanted Apple went to Intel. My guess is that Apple is now demanding special treatment and Intel isn't giving them it. AMD can't afford to give them special treatment, so basically Apple is just going to have to realize they are not special.




RE: So Apple has pissed off Intel
By vanka on 4/16/2010 5:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple is just going to have to realize they are not special

I'm not gonna hold my breath. I love Apple products (the first computers I ever worked on were Apple IIs and early Macs) but I hate Apple's arrogance. I hope they realize soon that a productive business relationship cannot be built by constantly pissing on your partners - especially if those partners are vital to you success.


AMD is a good company
By brokenaxiom on 4/16/2010 5:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
With the switch to global foundries and the recent huge success of the ATI 5000 line, I strongly believe AMD is in a good position to survive in the current markets. All the major chip makers understand that the CPU is becoming very irrelevant in today's market, which is why you see so much diversity in their product lines.

For Example, Intel is becoming a leader in SSDs and attempted to enter the GPU market. Nvidia has avoided creating building a CPU instead is focusing their efforts on Tegra and the CUDA family. And AMD is building the APU line with fusion.

If you look at the benchmarks for the Phenom II X965 versus the Core i7 for example, then you will see a speed difference on paper, but if the AMD user bought an SSD and has an ATI HD5850 for example, then the AMD user will have a better overall experience for roughly the same price.

Once apps are fully enabled for CUDA and OpenCL, then the CPU wars are over. It will all be about the computing ecosystem.




RE: AMD is a good company
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/16/2010 10:28:03 PM , Rating: 1
1. CPU is becoming irrelevant? Um, ok...
2. Nvidia = graphics/chipset not CPU


RE: AMD is a good company
By brokenaxiom on 4/28/2010 11:04:30 AM , Rating: 1
The CPU is absolutely becoming irrelevant because in every price range it is being trivialized. For the low end consumer seeking mostly web based applications, the Atom has really changed the market. For just a few dollars I can get a wonderful, fast, and very disposable chip to live my online life.

For mid-range consumer, you really don't have to spend more than $150 on a CPU. In fact, most can get by with $200 for both CPU and motherboard. The consumer is more likely to be concerned with the GPU, memory, and storage rather than the raw CPU speed as we were back in the 90s.

For the high end, the CPU really is again pointless. The speed different between a $180 Phenom II X4 965 and a $1,000 Core i7 EE for example is usually within 50% just on CPU to CPU comparisons, yet the gap closes significantly with OpenCL and CUDA enabled applications in consideration. As most modern apps are traveling down this route, I really doubt that it is the CPU people will care about.

Again, this is why we see AMD and Intel diversifying their product lines.

As for the idiotic Nvidia =graphics/chipset not CPU then fucking explain the Tegra chipset you dolt. For nearly ten years Nvidia has been toying with the idea of entering the CPU market with an AMD style APU approach. They practically have with this new CUDA core design.

For Example:
http://www.csiro.au/resources/GPU-cluster.html


Considering?
By danobrega on 4/16/2010 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Apple considers all available options. Why wouldn't they?




RE: Considering?
By cfaalm on 4/17/2010 2:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just like Dell, I guess. History repeats itself. It took almost forever, but in the end AMD provided an alternative for certain solutions. IIRC ATI cards have long populated Powermacs, so AMD will be no stranger for Apple. It just seems Apple's scope on AMD is widening.

I haven't read anything on Jobs' take on Bulldozer but I can imagine he'd like the option of including that in Macs.

This will also mean more AMD stuff is suitable for a Hackintosh, haha.


Why not Ati Radeon by the same token
By Phoque on 4/16/2010 2:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Given all the problems with Nvida gpus as of late ( bumpgate, fermi ), I think Apple should start considering switching gpu provider as well. They could have better deals from AMD by switching to both their processors and gpus.




By Cheesew1z69 on 4/17/2010 4:21:06 PM , Rating: 1
Fermi just got released? So not sure how there are "all the problems" with them.


Apple Bull
By Uncle on 4/16/2010 4:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
Apple does this all the time, wants to upgrade their hardware and pits Amd against Intel to gain a better price from Intel.




By phatboye on 4/16/2010 5:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
1) Apple does not want to use CPUs with Intel's integrated graphics chips in future revisions of it's Mac products (look how long it took Apple to move toward Intel's current Core ix line of products I believe that had something to do with the long transition to Intel's new products).

2) AMD allowed Apple to test their up coming Fusion/Bobcat/Bulldozer chips and Apple was impressed with the engineering samples.

3) Apple is trying to get Intel to lower the prices of their current products

4) Apple is considering switching from Nvidia based graphics solutions to ATI based products.

5) Apple was not impressed with engineering samples of Intel's upcoming products (Sandy Bridge).

6) Apple is impressed with AMD's competitive pricing options.

I'm seriously hoping that #2 holds true, and I'm pretty sure that #6 plays a role in a decision to use products from AMD.




By Pirks on 4/16/2010 5:53:03 PM , Rating: 1
I'd bet only 4 holds, everything else - nah


By JuPO5b4REqAYbSPUlMcP on 4/16/2010 1:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Apple, like every other company, considers many manufacturers each product refresh. It comes down to will the supplier provide the best value, can they supply the chips in the volume and binning required, and will it save Apple money long term?

Every company does this.... or at least I hope they do.




It just makes sense
By MonkeyPaw on 4/16/2010 2:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Apple should look into every vendor available. If anyone should know what putting all your eggs in one basket does (PPC), it's Apple. Intel has been pretty solid lately, but nvidia has been on the ropes for a few years now. Apple should see AMD as a good partner-- they make entire platforms after all!

Just think, if we see AMD support, even cheaper hackintoshes will be possible. :) It also makes me wonder about the potential for mainstream OSX availability on non-Apple hardware. Yes I know Apple makes tons of money on hardware, but if they wish to grow their company beyond its current customer base, then they will need to find cheaper ways to reach out. Besides, MS doesn't seem to do too bad just selling software.




By LarryT21 on 4/16/2010 2:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Switch To A Mac stated this as a very likely event in 2010 - Check out the Jan 4, 2010 piece titled, 2010 - What's in store for the Mac?

In it they state:

Speculation 1 - Apple adopts AMD processors

Ok, this one is out there but not outside the realm of possibility. By adopting AMD processors, Apple could open several doors for the Mac. I highlight two:

1. It could strengthen Apple's bargaining position with Intel over microprocessor supply and prices. A pure play on buyer and supplier power.

2 Differentiation - Adding AMD as a chip supplier will allow Apple to further differentiate and segment both the portable Mac lineup and its customers. This segmentation could occur at the feature and price sensitivity levels. The precedent was set when Apple lowered Mac prices in 2009. It's no secret that the MacBook and MacBook Pro models do not differ substantially (see Apple's comparison table) even though Apple rebranded the 13-inch aluminum MacBook as a MacBook Pro in June 2009 and now classifies the white polycarbonate model as the only MacBook. Adding a new microprocessor supplier could help differentiate the portable lineup</a>

http://www.switchtoamac.com/site/2010-whats-in-sto...




Nice
By majorpain on 4/16/2010 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see Apple doing this. Maybe i get me a Mac now.




By Moohbear on 4/16/2010 3:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
When rumors of Apple ditching Power processors for Intel x86 surfaced, everyone wondered why they were not going with AMD, as Athlon/Opteron looked much better than Intel P4 chips at the time. In fact, Apple was eyeing the Core and Core2 processors still in development. Perhaps Apple is interested in Bulldozer more than Fusion? The honeymoon between Apple and Intel ended with the unibody refresh, so who knows what's next?




By sans2212 on 4/20/2010 1:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
AMD people are idiot fools that they are incompetent in all aspect of the company. Their engineers are incompetent as well as its management and marketing. Apple should stick with Intel because Intel has more money in the bank than AMD. Its engineers are the Rock stars and the best engineers in the world.




Partner
By eirruby on 4/17/2010 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 1
Apple and AMD might be a good partner.

http://www.dreamwalkmobile.com/




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki