AMD inside Apple in 2009?
Here's a radical idea: a 2009 Apple computer with an AMD processor.
Improbable?
(Credit: Apple, AMD)Maybe this isn't in the cards, but it should be. Especially in light of Advanced Micro Devices' upcoming ultraportable platforms.
I see an upscale Netbook-like Apple computer with, let's say, a slightly smaller form factor than the Apple MacBook Air. Maybe an 11-inch or 12-inch design packing low-power (and relatively inexpensive) AMD Yukon or Congo silicon. This would not be a Netbook clone--and would offer much better graphics silicon than a Netbook--allowing Apple to sufficiently differentiate itself.
Or what about an Apple laptop with an upcoming AMD 45-nanometer mobile processor plus ATI Radeon HD 3600-level graphics that slots below the MacBook Pro? I'm sure Apple could find a head-turning way to implement this that would set it apart from the Intel-based hordes.
Or: AMD's 45-nanometer Shanghai or Phenom II in a Mac Pro? Maybe this concept is beyond the pale for the marketing folks at Apple, but it shouldn't be.
And Apple has demonstrated it can buck conventional processor politics. Intel's newest ultra-low-voltage (ULV) Core 2 Duo processors were offered by all the top-tier laptop vendors as an Intel bundle--Intel processor and Intel integrated graphics--until Apple decided to "think different" and up the ante with an Nvidia GeForce 9400M-based chipset.
Needless to say, AMD needs to go where Intel hasn't gone before in 2009. Last year was not a good year for AMD. Aside from its financial difficulties and the spinoff of its manufacturing operations, it couldn't muster a respectable challenge to Intel in server, desktop, or mobile chips. AMD's newest Shanghai processor for servers and Phenom II for desktops should be competitive with Intel offerings, but don't expect any tectonic shift in market share.
So AMD should be targeting Intel vulnerabilities--some of them self-imposed because of Intel's rigid processor segmentation in some areas--as well as exploiting its self-proclaimed advantage: AMD is the only one of the Big Three PC processor suppliers (the other two being Intel and Nvidia) that makes both CPUs and GPUs.
AMD's Fusion strategy should be more than a marketing mantra. Some unsolicited advice: find a truly unique way to fuse together the strengths of the CPU and GPU before Intel or Nvidia beat you to it.
Brooke Crothers has been an editor at large at CNET News, an analyst at IDC Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, among other endeavors, including co-manager of an after-school math-and-reading center. He writes for the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
it is obvious that AMD always delivered better on price/performance, but that hardly would fly with Apple since they always aim for best. yes, crisis might change that.
imho, Apple will not do it. partnership with Intel is more of strategic kind and AMD simply doesn't have resources to satisfy such demanding customer as Apple.
rename: CNET Speculator?
none
we can save $50 since PhenomII gives C2Q performance at lower price
That would still require Apple to get at least $150-$250 savings out of the deal on their end... the gap (even in lots of 1,000) between AMD and Intel chip prices doesn't cover that spread.
This proves two things: 1) Apple is a big liar in marketing, and 2) they're too stupid to be prudent = the Great iNOvator.
/P
"Reduced Instruction Set Computing" has NOTHING TO DO WITH if the processor is FASTER (clock speed) STUPID!
The FACT IS, software writers were TIRED of writing RISC based programs for only 2.5% of the computing market, which is the SECOND reason Apple switched to X86! The FIRST REASON is then Apple can have their computers made on the SAME CRAPPY SWEATSHOP ASSEMBLY LINES as low end Dells, Gateways and Lenovo's while STILL CHARGING YOU STUPID MacTards the "Mac Premium"! (otherwise I dare you, EXPLAIN why Macs made of EXACTLY the same components cost TWICE AS MUCH as the same Dell or Gateway with a Reetail of $700???? And don't give me "more featiures" bull$hit .... there AREN'T ANY! PC's are BETTER FEATURED! Better sound systems, speakers, ports, where are the Multimedia remotes on a MacBook Pro???
2) Apple has been a great innovator of many products. There wasn't a demand for a GUI based touch screen PDA phone until the iPhone came along. PDA sales had dropped off the face of the planet with HP the only remaining producer. Now we have several different companies getting back into the game.
The XBOX 360 uses PowerPC because the game developers asked them to. All of the current generation consoles use PowerPC as the main CPU (Core is just a single-threaded PowerPC with 8 physics processor cores added to the wafer) and if everyone uses PowerPC then it's easier to port proprietary assembly language code that game developers use to get every last bit of performance out of a single-threaded game.
One of the greatest knocks on the original XBOX and the PS2 by the game developers was that having to develop a game for three different CPUs simultaneously was a real pain. Microsoft and Sony then adopted PowerPC since Nintendo GameCube was already using PowerPC and had made no bones about the fact that the Wii was going to be PowerPC again.
In short, Apple's main reason for switching from IBM/Motorola was due to IBM refusing to create a mobile class PowerPC 970 (aka G5) CPU, which Apple greatly needed for their next generation PowerBooks. Also Intel has been pining for Apple for over 25 years and Steve Jobs has always had a soft spot for Intel as he was best of friends with Andy Grove (who wanted Apple to help Intel break from the Microsoft death grip).
You have a lot to learn dude!
This article explains why RISC is better than CISC (which is what x86 is): http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell4_v2.html
I was actually appalled at Apple switching to Intel. Even though I have a Macbook, I still wished they either went P.A. Semi before Apple bought them out or at least with the Cell processor because that thing has great potential and Apple didn't quite see it.
gnutux
Just guessing here I don't really know for sure.
I can't get OSX to Hackintosh on to an AMD based system
nice, never got it to run
Nehalem is more like K10 since it has L3
Sigh..., I miss the days of the x2 vs. pentium D...
They might use Yukon platform on MacBookAir
Right now apple has Intel, AMD and NVIDIA in their current offerings. The whole notebook line is Nivida, the current Mac Mini is Intel, the iMac is AMD at the low end and Nvidia at the high end. The Mac Pro is Nividia.
I am betting the iMac and Mac Mini get the Nvidia video cards that the Macbook and Macbook Pro have and then they will be Nvidia across it all. AMD and Intel are out the door.
Okay, here's why it won't happen: AMD has a lower MTBF, a lower reputation for quality, and in spite of kick-arse bang-for-buck (and more than a little PC hobbyist love from my days spent building 'em), nobody wants to see the Phenom debacle happen on their products. While Dell and HP can bury AMD chips in a huge product line, Apple cannot, and they'd eat the blame if anything went wrong.
How much of OS X or how difficult would it be to have to be ported to the AMD architecture? While the bones of it could run on both, I do wonder how much customization Apple has done to tweak it for the Intel chipset that would require a large effort to redo it for the AMD platform.
I always liked AMD in the early days over Intel. In the last decade they really haven't been much different from Intel though to make a difference to me when I build a system. It used to mean something, but now? Meh.
If they copy and pasted those Intel specific code parts all over their code base then yeah it could take a while to swap those out. However, if they kept those sections restricted to a few locations in the kernel like a HAL (hardware abstractions layer) and in a few code libraries that they can just call when needed then there are a lot less places to go when looking for Intel specific code.
This is why you wrap your code up and reuse it whenever possible. That way if you have to change it later you can just change two or three sections instead of modifying the 2000 or 3000 places you actually call that code from.
Now it's Apple. If I had to guess how well their code was organized I would guess pretty darn good. So, it's still work, but knowing them they probably already have it running on AMDs in some tests just in case one day maybe they would want to you know.
Check into http://www.osx86project.org/ - they already have OSX on AMD running, with the only modifications being the SSE3 emulations (when needed) and the EFI emulator. Trust me - if dedicated hobbyists had to guess at a patch on OSX to make it happen, I'm very sure it would take nothing at all for Apple to modify their own codebase to do it. IOW - it would be trivial to do.
...and for once Dan, I actually agree with you - about AMD's early days vs. now. Back then, you could overclock an AMD chip to spectacular heights (often to 2x performance plus on the early K6/2 chips), and not pay a mint to do it. Even at speed parity, AMD chips back in the day kicked the unholy crap out of Intel's equivalent offerings, and for far less cash.
Nowadays overclocking is a waste of a perfectly good CPU/mobo combo, and gets you very little benefit to outweigh the work involved in doing it. AMD's quality has also dropped, to the point where the cost savings mean you usually end up with a room-heater. Also, Intel dropped their chip prices so that you don't have to rob a bank just to get a decent processor these days.
Apple is doing great with Intel + They have ARM processors in use + they own their own Chip company now too.
How much AMD stock do you own?
Waiting now for a witty explanation to that!
and Ps, AMD's are NOT "significantly slower", in fact many testing sites show some AMD server processors are faster than Intel. They certainly have better/faster video chip sets now than Intel's home-grown CRAP.
I agree that Apple will try to sell a bill of goods on performance, but the truth is that bloggers and sites like THG do actually benchmark systems and would report the truth. You can easily run Windows Vista with Boot Camp to perform a standard set of benchmarks that would then give you the real truth. Mac OS X isn't going to flip the performance around on its own.
There is no Opeteron that is faster than the fastest Xeons. The CPUs used in the Mac Pro are monsters that AMD can't touch.
A MUCH more likely senario is Apple switching to Dual / Quad core ARM processors with single or dual GPU on all systems except servers (Mac Pro and XServe)
With the introduction of Snow Leopard (Mac OS 10.6) with it's advanced muticore utilization and OpenCL technologies, the combination of GPU processing power and low cost / power multicore processors, Apple will be moving AWAY from x86.
This has already started with the iPhone and, I suspect, will continue into their laptops, then iMac and Mac Mini. My guess is that Apple will start this "transition" in about a year or maybe more.
Another possibility is Apple acquiring NVidia for their GPUs. NVidia is worth about 6 billion, well within Apple buying power.
...but AMD. No.
x86 still has more market share
If Apple get more market share (like 75%), maybe
x86 still has more market share"
This is completely irrelevant !!
Mac developers will use the Apple supplied dev tools which will COMPILE to the chosen architecture (x86, PPC, ARM).
This is CURRENTLY being done. Nothing new here.
As for the speed argument, I doubt many people would notice a difference in everyday use. Even when talking about a 10 or 15% difference in speed, it is often hardly noticeable. And like others have pointed out, the speed difference is negligible and in some cases, like servers, AMD can often be faster
As for the comment about the G3, G4's etc.. Well, they were faster than Intel's chips at the time. It was proven repeatedly in lab tests, time after time. Even PC World got results that showed the PowerPC processors outperforming the Pentium series, even with their lower clock speed and megahertz ratings. With the G5 generation the speed advantage began to fade, as IBM had little reason to continually up their speed when Apple was their only major customer. Intel processors are cheaper and they are constantly upping the anty.. The decision was no a brainer. Do some research before you make yourself sound stupid.
Of the two AMD computers I've owned, both overheated to the point that they could barely run.
Of the three Intel computers I've owned, none have suffered from this issue.
I'm only stating the facts from what I've experienced first hand.
Like I said, I've seen plenty of Intels go up in smoke too. One CPU overheating maybe. Two and it's your fault. Obviously you're doing something wrong. Any CPU can overheat, but if you go out and get cheap heatsinks and cheap fans and a motherboard without heat protection or you buy a Walmart computer then I can't help you. If you've overheated two processors you really need to start looking at the user because that's where the problem might be.
AMDs and Intels both support heat protection, but if you're smart you'll get a motherboard that supports it too. It either throttles the CPU down or flat out turns the computer off before it overheats. However, what happens is the CPU starts to overheat and it gets throttled down in speed. Yeah that saves it for now, but you can't keep just running it that way. However, what does the dumb user see? He sees a CPU that's running at half speed and thinks it's slow and a few months later it blows so AMD sucks! or Intel sucks! Unknown to him it was just the CPU trying to save itself the whole time.
Then you open it up and realize they stored it on a dusty floor and you open it up to find enough dust and nicotine in the cooling vent holes to clog the Grand friggin Canyon, but yes of course it's the CPU's fault. Look, give me 10 minutes and I can fry your Intel too. However, take care of it and it'll last. If we're going to throw out anecdotal evidence My oldest working AMD system is a Duron going on 8+ years and I have an AMD Athlon 500 Slot A that works fine as well. What doesn't work it in any longer is the Voodoo 3 card. I also have a Pentium III 450, Pentium 1, 166 and a P 333 too. Seriously, if you know what you're doing. So I really don't know what you're doing, but two CPUs. You're doing something to them.
I never use stock HSF since they suck, both AMD and Intel
- by Imsochobo January 3, 2009 12:52 AM PST
- 80% OF YOU, GET YOURE FREAKING FACTS RIGHT.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Imalittleteapot January 3, 2009 4:03 AM PST
- Finally some sanity. I've never had any CPU, AMD or Intel fry. I've seen others either fry it or have it keep shutting off though. Every time it was something the user or OEM did. Intel or AMD. It was a cheap part someone bought to save a buck and it broke and they just kept running it like that or something like the heat sink was blatantly not on correctly or they didn't use thermal paste or it was in a completely enclosed cabinet or whatever.
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber January 3, 2009 9:59 AM PST
- The lowest end AthlonX2 keeps running w/out the HSF at full speed
- Like this
-
- by Imalittleteapot January 3, 2009 6:25 PM PST
- You're going to blame the X2 for removing the heatsink? Really? It's the CPU's fault that you removed the HSF? Yes you can fry certain chips by removing the HSF. However, the whole point of the comment was that it's almost always the builder's or user's fault when a CPU goes. Removing the HSF is so in the realm of the USERS FAULT! Also, any X2 I've ever seen without an HSF shut itself off fine. So, I don't even know if your claim is true or not.
- Like this
-
- by Imalittleteapot January 3, 2009 6:38 PM PST
- Or gen II I mean.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (68 Comments)There is no doubt at all, intel has the fastest cpu, at what price ?.
Phenom 2 is comming, better price/performance ratio, 3GHZ, requires lower end memory, they got 780G IGP which is atleast as fast as nvidia, or not faster.
Going for amd 45NM will make some nice products. ill explain quickly and briefly what amd can fill and not fill (and the list isnt small )
Amd can take over Imac, they are small, compact and isnt powerfull, yet having simular performance options in terms of cpu, they will be giving it a nice treat, better graphics and possibility to watch BLUERAY.
2nd.
Notebooks, fusion, IGP, that again is a nice treat, cannot amd fill those ?, yes they can.
3rd.
MAC Pro, they can fill the lower end of the spectre, and actually quite high, it doesnt match the qx9650 and qx9770 in performance and far from Core 7, but the price is right for amd here.
so, for the real performance guys here, go for the intel, amd havnt all spots in the 3 product series i noted just over, they can compete.
Overheating, are you guys on drugs?
Socket A 1333 mhz cpu: OC to 1500 mhz, mid range cooler. ran 3 years. cpu still working state.
A64 3000+ stock aluminium cooler: overclocked 600 mhz still running 3 years after.(cheapest motherboard i could find.
A64 X2 4400+ 110W 2MB 3 years, 400 mhz overclock, stock cooler copper heatpipe version boxed cpu.
Phenom 9850. 125 W 2MB 1 year. 600 mhz overclock, stock cooler copper heatpipe version boxed cpu.
And i got intel too, 486 P1 90 mhz P1 166 mhz P2 266 mhz P3 500mhz 5 X P4 2.6ghz (10x) p4 3 ghz.
Cpu's which had termal issues running stock cooler: Pentium 4 3 ghz northwood 1mb cache .
There is seriously NO cpu today you can buy which will give you any ANY termal issues, either you are really bad at mounting the heatsink, or youve taken it off, had it off for a little while and didnt clean off old thermal compound and replace it with new, this can add 15 C and adds almost 20C on a phenom 125W.
Sorry to be talking like this, but quality wise, there is little between theese two chip manufactures, i can just say, pentium 4 was a seriously bad chip by intel.
Overheating; 99% chance its YOURE, and no1 else's fault, there have been 1 incident that i have seen the past 20 years where the IHS wasnt properly fitted by intel (1.8ghz northwood) but this is ofcourse out of the 500 cpu's ive mounted, so i bet its youre fault if youre experienced it, and they never burn up, the motherboard can, not an cpu. try starting an amd or intel pc without heatsink(not reccomended) but amd as far as i know (AM2+) shuts down after 8 seconds.
The only exception is the P4 and on the AMD's side a bunch of people were using Phenom X4's on a 780 chipset and you're supposed to use a 790. A bunch of mobos fried and that's probably how the rumor got started. True, Intels hold up a little better to abuse like having the heat sink completely removed, but come on people. You shouldn't do stuff like that to start with.
slightly too hot for my liking though
PhenomX4 runs on 780G
790GX is for PhenomII
Yeah, you can run your first gen X4 on a 780 now as long as you make sure you have an extra HSF on the board. But if it blows up, it's the mobo's fault. Yet again, not the CPU's. In my opinion some was AMD's fault, but the flaw itself was actually present in the mobos and not the CPU.
http://www.slashgear.com/amd-blames-motherboards-for-overheating-phenom-x4-cpus-2911391/
http://www.slashgear.com/amd-phenom-x4-overheat-revisited-cooling-tweaks-save-budget-boards-0211444/
You can buy a mobo with its own overheat protection too that'll save your GPU as well. Doesn't always work, but the P4's overheat too. Even though the one I use at work never has. Does that mean all Intel's suck? How about just getting a CPU that does shut down properly? Wouldn't that make much more sense then complaining about an old outdated chip? If you don't know what you're doing then please stay out of the game and let someone else build your system. Don't let the poor innocent CPU take the blame for something like REMOVING THE HSF!
This is why I don't really build my own systems anymore. Too busy to keep up on all that stuff to do it properly, but honestly if it goes up you probably did something wrong. I'm not saying a CPU can't go up in smoke on it's own. But typically if it does you should look to the builder first, the motherboard second, and only lastly blame the CPU. It's usually the very last thing that's at fault, but always the first thing that gets blamed.