• On TV.com: SONS OF ANARCHY: Steady Riding Pays Off
May 22, 2009 2:31 PM PDT

AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005

by Brooke Crothers

An Advanced Micro Devices executive claims that Intel and Apple cut a deal in 2005 that made Intel an exclusive supplier of processors to Apple, preventing AMD from gaining Apple business.

No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers

No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers.

(Credit: Apple)

The claim, made in a phone interview with Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, earlier this week, holds that Intel has had a longstanding deal to be Apple's sole supplier of microprocessors. To date, Apple has not used an AMD central processing unit (CPU) in any of its products. Currently, only Intel CPUs populate Apple's laptop, desktop, and server lineups.

This assertion by AMD comes in the wake of the EU decision last week to fine Intel $1.45 billion for violating antitrust legislation. Last week's EU decision centered on whether Intel used illegal tactics to deny processor business to AMD at PC makers.

McCoy said that a deal was struck when Apple moved from the PowerPC (IBM-Motorola) chip architecture to the x86 (Intel-AMD) architecture. The transition was announced by Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developers Conference in 2005.

"They made a deal when they were porting over from PowerPC to x86 as to how much Intel was willing to pay for that port. My guess is that Intel asked for and won exclusivity in return for the help that they gave Apple to port," McCoy said.

McCoy continued: "That deal will not be exclusive forever and when that exclusivity is over, I'm sure they (Apple) will choose on the merits. We'll have a chance to compete for Apple's business when Apple is ready," he said. Intel denies this allegation.

Though McCoy did not make any direct charge of illegal activity regarding such a deal, the assertion is not that far removed from charges made in the July 2005 AMD complaint against Intel. AMD, in that filing, cited Dell, among other examples of exclusive Intel deals with PC makers. "In its history, Dell has not purchased a single AMD x86 microprocessor despite acknowledging Intel shortcomings and customer clamor for AMD solutions, principally in the server sector...Dell has been and remains Intel-exclusive. According to industry reports, Intel has bought Dell's exclusivity with outright payments and favorable discriminatory pricing and service." (Note: Dell, in 2005, offered no AMD-based products, though it does today.)

Whether the deal is exclusive doesn't in itself constitute a legal argument, according to Joshua D. Wright of the George Mason University School of Law, who has written about the EU decision in a blog, "Truth on the Market." "Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must show that the exclusive dealing arrangement harmed competition in the form of higher prices, lower output, or reduced innovation," Wright said, responding to an e-mail query.

Addressing the Apple case, Wright said that by granting exclusivity or a large share of their business, "Apple and others are able to play Intel and AMD off each other to get higher rebates. These rebates are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. That's a critical part of the equation here. In other words, when Apple makes a decision whether or not to accept Intel's offer of higher rebates plus exclusivity versus whatever it is that AMD offers, it weighs these different aspects of competition (quality, price, rebate, exclusivity). It is making a decision on the merits of the total competitive package," he said.

Intel says the original Apple decision was, in fact, based on the merits. "Intel won the business based on the merits of its technology and product road maps, which included superb mobile processors and our 45nm Hi-k-based processor roadmap," Intel spokeswoman Claudine Mangano said in response to an e-mail query. "What has resulted from this decision is tremendous product and market innovation. If Intel technology did not perform well and our product road map was not strong, customers would go elsewhere," she said.

The transition was not trivial, according to Intel. "The decision was a large undertaking and a multiyear effort given the customer was porting to a new architecture," she said.

Apple declined to comment on this story.

Analysts agree that the transition from PowerPC to x86 was a formidable undertaking.

"Intel put a significant amount of resources into helping Apple make that transition," said Jim McGregor, chief technology strategist at In-Stat. "There are different ways you could do this. In terms of product pricing, charging for engineering resources, or maybe even--'this is our agreement to provide you with these products in exchange for the engineering,'" he said. McGregor added that AMD may not have had the wherewithal to take on the transition. "I don't know if Apple could even have gone to AMD. Because I don't know if AMD would have had the resources to do that."

Marion Morales, vice president of IDC's semiconductors research program, said Apple is fiercely independent and, generally, picks suppliers with Darwinian rigor. "Apple is notorious for not being very loyal," he said. "They are always changing suppliers around. Whoever offers the better technology," according to Morales.

"For example, they're using Samsung for the (ARM) processor that's now in the iPhone," Morales said. "But it won't surprise me when they replace that with something that's better. And when you look at the processor itself, they're designing the processor and using Samsung as a foundry (factory)," he said, underscoring the fact that Apple emphasizes internally developed technology and de-emphasizes external suppliers, even large companies like Intel and Samsung.

Morales continued. "Maybe at this point in time Apple is only using Intel. But if they had a chance to use someone else that's better, they would," he said.

The Intel-Apple relationship has had its ups and downs. Though Apple extolled the virtues of Intel's architecture after its transition to Intel in 2006 and continued this in January 2008, for example, when it introduced the MacBook Air--which, at the time, used a special Intel processor--the two companies were not so chummy in October of last year when Apple announced a refresh of its MacBooks, replete with Nvidia chipsets that displaced Intel silicon.

Apple has also acquired chip company PA-Semi, which is expected to design silicon for Apple's iPhone or other consumer electronics devices.

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.
Recent posts from Nanotech - The Circuits Blog
Nvidia CEO says 'no' to Intel-compatible chip
First iPhone, now Droid. Who needs Windows?
One charge hard to level at Intel: Raising prices
Nvidia CEO unsurprised by Intel lawsuit
N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell
Marvell touts new e-readers, partnerships
Intel comments on iPhone sync glitch
Former AMD chief Ruiz leaving spin-off
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (67 Comments)
by gerrrg May 22, 2009 2:47 PM PDT
It's really strange that AMD would choose Apple to make an example of Intel's practices.

Apple, after all, is a monopoly by itself, locking out anyone else from using their OS on hardware outside of Apple's own. And Apple has long made the argument that they are better able to control the quality and testing if they limit the hardware to fewer choices, thereby providing a better experience.

I think AMD would be smarter than to point at Intel-Apple.
Reply to this comment
by SiliconValleyJoe May 22, 2009 3:08 PM PDT
You completely misunderstood what is meant by "monopoly". it is interesting that so many just repeat the same mistakes without thinking.

Does Toyota give away its hybrid technology to GM, BMW, Ford so they can all build hybrids? No? Toyota is a monopoly?
Does Boeing give away its design of the Dreamliner to AirBus, Sikorsky, Fiat? No? So Boeing is a monopoly?
Nvidia software runs its chipset and does not give away that software to other chip makers to run their chips, so Nvidia is a monopoly?

What has happened to simple logic and critical thinking?
by slickuser May 22, 2009 3:22 PM PDT
If Apple had gone with AMD, Apple would have stuck with 65nm processors for long time while Intel was shipping
millions of 45nm to other OEMs.
by slickuser May 22, 2009 3:31 PM PDT
check out http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2

Top 10 processors are from Intel and later I see AMD processor only here & there.

Why would someone choose AMD over Intel?
by ikramerica--2008 May 22, 2009 3:49 PM PDT
Exactly (not the stupid monopoly comment, the AMD isn't worth it comment).

Seriously, Apple chose Intel because:

1. their product was better
2. their roadmap was better
3. they were more stable at the time and able to help apple build customer logic boards

Now, Apple is even moving off of the ATI chips to the NVidia chips, because AMD has allowed ATI to fall behind when it used tolead. AMD is just not a well run company in comparison to Intel when it comes to creating the best chips.

And a slight correction to the article:
x86 is the Intel architecture in hardware terms. They came up with x86. It's their intellectual property, in hardware. AMD is simply a builder and supplier of chips that can run "x86 compatible" code. But x86 is not the "AMD architecture". They have their own architecture, and that's the main reason there are differences in performance in the first place.
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 5:48 PM PDT
@ikramerica
look at the high end graphics cards for the iMac and Mac Pro
both ATi
4850 and 4870 respectively

Apple just isn't advertising ATi chips as much as they do nVidia
by SactoGuy018 May 22, 2009 9:54 PM PDT
Apple chose Intel because at the time Apple decided to make the jump to Intel CPU's, Intel had shown Apple what would become the landmark "Conroe"-core Core 2 Duo CPU. Since these new CPU's ran quite cool, it made them very adaptable for use on the iMac, and as such by fall 2006 iMacs were using the Core 2 Duo CPU's.
by Qtechbg May 23, 2009 3:17 AM PDT
@Sillicon - it is a monopoly since PC processors are in a market of its own (not to mention the 3bln customer base around the globe). You can't compare other semiconductors with PC CPUs the same way you can't compare apples to oranges.

@slickuser Anand was and still is pro-Intel oriented. How come? Try searching for his publications showing a clear advantage of AMD over Intel on mhz-mhz basis ever. You won't find any. And that's the problem with both incl. Apple - at the time Apple struck that deal (2005) AMD had CLEAR superiority on mhz basis (open any charts you can find and you will see a 3ghz P4 struggling to win over a 1.8ghz Athlon). If you look backwards from now - Intel seems the better choice but I doubt Steve J. could see the future 3 years ahead.

But it doesn't matter whether or not Apple favours Intel after all. Neither to S.J. and co. since their products are always overpriced, nor to the customers since most of them want the OS and the stylish look and don't care about the price tag...
by Mac User Too May 23, 2009 12:56 PM PDT
Apple is not a monopoly. Check the definition.
by i_am_still_wade May 23, 2009 3:19 PM PDT
Although Intel is better now, there was a time when Intel stood for pure junk. The Pentium 4 Prescott core was very bad. And that is being kind. AMD Athlon 64 and Opteron was running circles around Intel in everything. Still, motherboard manufacturers had to make unbranded motherboards so they could sell AMD CPU's without angering Intel. And I could go on. The reason why AMD never had the success it should have is because Intel's discounts were not based on how much you bought like all other businesses, but rather what percentage of CPU's you bought that were from Intel. That is illegal and immoral when you are in Intel's position.

If AMD had been allowed to compete fairly, it may have had more capital and who is to say if their R&D team would have stayed ahead of Intel. Emphasis on may because Intel does have some very good engineers. Thanks to AMD, we have cheap multi-core CPU's, x86-64, and on-chip memory controller.

The moral of the story is this: competition benefits us all. If not for AMD, good computers would not be less than $1000 today. We need competition. We need AMD and Intel to survive. Right now, the best CPU is the Core i7. Second place is the Phenom II only because it runs very fast. Core 2 is a close third but would be #2 if it have more MHz. Both Phenom II and Core 2 are priced well. Competition makes us a winner.
by Aaron Kempf May 22, 2009 2:54 PM PDT
I thik that Apple sucks and both companies should be sued for collusion. FACT: Intel didn't win a _SINGLE_ benchmark between the years 2000 and 2007.
Reply to this comment
by philosfool May 22, 2009 3:28 PM PDT
Collusion in what? Picking the supplier of the chips that run your computers? That's just a silly allegation, since there's nothing illegal about agreeing to work with a single supplier.

Also, you dramatically overstate the superiority of AMD processors in benchmarks. AMD has been second fiddle since Core 2 Duo, which arrived in summer 2006. Conroe, the e6600 was released then, and was from that time until the time of Wolfdale and e8500, the best dual core processor available. Intel continues to make the best dual core processor available. AMDs latest, the Phenom II X2 550, which just received pre-release benchmarks at X-Bit labs this week, gets about the performance of the e7400, an low-priced intel chip. Moreover, many pentium processor from 2000-2004 outperformed AMD offerings.
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 5:53 PM PDT
@philosfool
maybe my memory was fading, but Netburst sucked
Ph2 720 is faster than the e8400 and e8500 both of which are more expensive

and the Ph2 550 is obviously a budget chip, so it competes with Intel's budget offerings, like the e7400
by Tod Smith May 22, 2009 2:58 PM PDT
AMD here is not stating facts. Intel has always had the factory edge.

Apple wants smaller silicon chips. They don't really care about speed.
Reply to this comment
by abrli May 22, 2009 4:43 PM PDT
Of course Apple cares about speed a lot, if not they wouldn't have bothered to work with Intel to push out the custom size C2D processor for the 1st Gen MacBook Air.

In fact the CPU they put in MacBook Air is far faster than the 1.2GHz ultra-low voltage **** Sony and many other PC manufacturers use on their similar line of ultra-portable laptops.
by ikramerica--2008 May 22, 2009 5:05 PM PDT
And Apple was first to use the new Xeon chips in the 2009 Mac Pro. With Snow Leopard optimized for multi-thread processing (rather than dual-thread), and professional apps like Final Cut Studio 3 written for Snow Leopard, speed will increase dramatically.
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 5:57 PM PDT
@ikramerica
if Apple explain the lack of more than 2 processors in the xserve
@Tod
Apple cares about speed
notice the lack of a 1.2GHz processor option for the MacBook Air
and maybe the [albeit slow] DDR3 RAM

they just don't care about speed enough to trade low TDP to get some more
by slickuser May 22, 2009 3:18 PM PDT
what AMD says about Apple using NVIDIA chipsets? Apple struck deal with NVIDIA too?

AMD = bunch of whiners
Reply to this comment
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 5:58 PM PDT
No
AMD doesn't make Intel chipsets
And Apple uses ATi graphics cards in some of their iMac and Mac Pro
by slickuser May 22, 2009 7:01 PM PDT
@pithenumber

AMD doesn't make Intel chipsets - It is not Intel's fault or Apple's...

Mobile markets are growing. so, everyone wants to get on it. AMD is not on Apple's laptops. Thats why
they are whining...
by MyRightEye May 22, 2009 3:19 PM PDT
Apple didn't port to x86 processors, NeXT already ran ON x86 chips. It was ported to PowerPC and the OS was kept binary compatible with both PowerPC and x86 processors. NeXT/Rhapsody/OSX is very processor agnostic.
Reply to this comment
by CyStarkman May 23, 2009 12:19 AM PDT
@ MyRightEye

Right on!

I was going to say the same thing if someone had not. OS X has ALWAYS has parallel versions on Intel and PowerPC, the ground work for that was laid at NeXT.

Jobs while away from Apple playing with NeXT and Pixar was spending a **** load on developing a hardware independent, object orientated system (not just OS but tools etc), even the display was Display Postscript, making it resolution independent and vector based.

This AMD guy is just feeling lame about his whatever.

Apple more likely went to Intel with OSX on a demonstration box they built themselves fully running and said "We're bored with Power PC, what deal will you cut us".
by SiliconValleyJoe May 22, 2009 3:20 PM PDT
Hmmm... I want to buy a computer. One has INTEL chip and the other uses AMD. The shop selling the INTEL chip tells me I get free 12 month 24x7 support, is cheaper and is upgradable. The shop selling the AMD machine tells me I have to pay for support, is more expensive and upgrade will cost some dollars.

Which do I go for? If I buy the INTEL machine, I am supposedly in collusion with the INTEL shop? Because it gives me the best deal? So bargain hunting and getting the best deal is suddenly illegal and some sort of monopoly?

So if you buy a cheaper car with a better warranty and lower service cost, instead of a more expensive car with a weaker warranty and higher service cost, then you are supposedly doing something bad and illegal?

My feeble tiny little brain is completely fried by such wonderful logic. Help!
Reply to this comment
by websterphreaky May 22, 2009 3:37 PM PDT
Come on Crothers / CNut-tards , SPILL THE WHOLE BEANS, you bunch of crApple Hacks!

The FULL DEAL that slime-Intel made to crApple was that if crApple did NOT use any AMD processors and ONLY INTEL, then crApple could have access to 100% of Intel's NAND RAM production for as long as crApple stayed with the deal / or 2 years! You remember, that crApple was trying to corner the WHOLE NAND Flash Ram market for the iPuds and keep Creative and others from being able to release any appreciable number of Flash MP3 Players in competition .... you see, crApple DOESN'T LIKE COMPETITION, crApple likes MONOPOLY'S!

Intel, Samsung, Toshiba and Sandisk made the MAJORITY NAND RAM at the time and Intel and Toshiba were the largest potential producers. Intel sold crApple 100% (which meant the MacIntel deal WAS A DONE DEAL), Samsung agreed to sell 80%, SanDisk more than 1/2 of their production and Toshiba agreed to 50% to crApple.

HOW do I know all this is true?? I worked for Toshiba's semi-conductors group at the time!

CNut, either you are a bunch of incompetents to NOT know about the TRUTH and do some easy investigations, OR you are truely just a bunch of crApple Hacks
Reply to this comment
by SlimGem May 22, 2009 5:35 PM PDT
"HOW do I know all this is true?? I worked for Toshiba's semi-conductors group at the time!"

Did they fire your lame ass? Honestly, how do you get through life with that dysfunctional brain of yours? You need to seek professional help.
by batmanyey May 22, 2009 4:05 PM PDT
sometimes it makes me wonder why AMD has such stupid legal counselors :( AMD has a REPUTATION problem (manufacturing issues!!! Barcelona hiccup?) AMD makes SUBSTANDARD products!!! Geez, I wonder if these idiots even go to Bestbuy or Fry's? Almost all computers displayed use the Intel microprocessor :( ~ try asking your classmates in college or at work about an AMD processor and they will give you the look of "what's that?" fricken never heard of!
Reply to this comment
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 6:00 PM PDT
look at the server market
8x Opty's rule in their price bracket
by abrli May 22, 2009 4:40 PM PDT
Surely AMD would love a slice of market share in the growing Apple business, but why would Apple choose AMD over Intel anyway? In fact, why would any manufacturer choose AMD now? You can hardly buy an AMD PC now, why do they think "by merits" they can win Apple's favour?

Engineers choose chips by scientific measures, not like novice choosing cars looking at the brochure. They will of course consider all the pros and cons of the chips that they select. It's a lame argument for AMD just to shout about than getting their head down to play catch up with Intel. Not saying that Intel didn't screw things up when they were late into the multi-core era, but they got their head down and pushed out Core 2 Duo really quickly and regained the market share. Now Intel's leading its way in the Nehalem architecture optimised for parallel computing and modern multimedia applications running on it. If AMD were to restrike the balance a little bit, they really have a lot of work to finish off before rejoicing over the EU ruling.

Just looking at their reaction these days, I SHOW ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT FOR THE COMPANY!!!
Reply to this comment
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 6:05 PM PDT
I have no problem with Apple using Intel chips in their consumer computers
quite honestly, Opty's are mainly server chips, Xeons are great for workstations, Turions are slow and power hungry, C2d's are great for notebooks, Ph2's have too high of a TDP for the thinness of the iMac to be maintained, C2D's can cut the power consumption and heat down, but the thing is, they are using a Xeon for their server, a place where Opty's kick butt
by winstein May 22, 2009 7:59 PM PDT
Not everything between AMD & Intel are clear-cut: Most AMD processors supports 64-bit AND Virtualization. Many of the C2D processors don't support Virtualization.
by Viv Collins May 22, 2009 5:00 PM PDT
After our experience with Motorola and IBM do you think Apple users would have appreciated another also ran chip companies processors.
Reply to this comment
by CyStarkman May 23, 2009 12:26 AM PDT
In its day Motorola made some good chips, the 68x series was excellent. By the time double clocking (DX266) and MMX hit they were finished up.

AMD has always played little boy to Intel. Even the whole x86 story, what's this x86 Intel/AMD thing he mentions. x86 is Intel's design, AMD is just a licensed poser.

Its not just about the chip, its the instruction set. Apple can work with Intel to move the reference point for x86; AMD then has to follow, hoping for some hardware invention to give them an edge.
by rdupuy11 May 22, 2009 5:10 PM PDT
When Apple first moved to intel, they were quite competitive, for the first time in a very long time.
Even thought they still were not competing (much) on the low end, certainly not competing in the low end of the 'expandable midsize tower' market...the fact was that their core duo offerings were actually about the same cost as anyones...that hasn't happened in a long time, and has kind of slipped away recently.

But I thought Apple got the better part of that bargain.

With that said, I think AMD's point is that in the bad old days, Intel was using its immense size and leverage to harm the market, such as it did with Dell, when there customers were begging for the higher powered AMD opteron's in their servers, and Dell refused to sell them because of this backroom deal they had with Intel. And I can tell you from working at companies that had exclusive buying with Dell, that it really was ashame to have to pick from this garbage server or that one, and not get anything decent.

I don't think the Apple deal is quite as onerous at all, but in 2009 its the closest thing that still resembles those deals of old.
Reply to this comment
by fazalmajid May 22, 2009 5:19 PM PDT
The main reason why Apple went for Intel is supply security. they were burned badly by IBM's inability to produce the G5 chips in sufficient volumes to meet demand. AMD did not have sufficient fabs when Apple switched, and one fab partner was IBM, with which Steve Jobs by then had bad blood. Intel's Core Duo was competitive with AMD's desktop parts by then (but not with the workstation-class Opterons), so they were not taking a performance hit in exchange for Intel-only (unlike Dell in 2002-2005).

Now Apple could have decided to hedge their bets. Intel probably offered them preferential access to high-end parts, which would indeed be borderline behavior in terms of leveraging their market position. In recent times, the faster Intel processors were available on Mac Pros first. I had my Nehalem Mac Pro before the Nehalem-EP 5500 series was officially unveiled by Intel itself a couple weeks later.

Another factor is that Intel absolutely despises Microsoft, because MS has the upper hand in the Wintel monopoly, and that must have resonated with Apple.
Reply to this comment
by Mr. Dee May 22, 2009 5:37 PM PDT
Steve Jobs was using plastics for the old Macs and wouldn't want an AMD oven in one of them, since it would melt it to the ground.
Reply to this comment
by SlimGem May 22, 2009 5:40 PM PDT
Apple simply does what they consider best for themselves in the long run. It's not rocket science. They will use those who can help them in their goals, and discard them when expedient. It's business; a very lucrative business.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 May 22, 2009 6:06 PM PDT
And they only went to ATI only for a while because NVidia screwed up and preanounced Mac products before Apple's press release, which pissed them off and damaged Apple's sales short term. So NVidia was in the doghouse for a while. But the best product wins out, and now Apple has no ATI chips standard (only optional) and no Intel integrated graphics.
by pithenumber May 22, 2009 6:40 PM PDT
@ikramerica
but the optional chips are the fastest ones in both scenarios
by ikramerica--2008 May 22, 2009 8:01 PM PDT
yes, but they also cost the most. NVidia is hitting the price performance point that ATI and Intel can't meet in graphics.

The point was, Apple goes with the best product for them, and will switch allegiences from one company to the other if a better product is offered. But for the machines apple builds - high end consumer - Intel makes the best chips and NVidia now makes the best graphics chip. AMD populates high end servers and low end consumer machines, and Apple doesn't produce either of those products.
by queticomn May 22, 2009 7:28 PM PDT
Intel was found to have paid companies, including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC, to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other companies including AMD. The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a "serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules".

In September 2007, South Korean regulators accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The investigation began in February 2006, when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. The company risked a penalty of up to 3% of its annual sales, if found guilty. In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of $25.5 million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.

New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors. In June 2008, the Federal Trade Commission also began an antitrust investigation of the case.

Yep yep. all raise the aMD^ flag anyday :)(:
Reply to this comment
by slickuser May 22, 2009 7:33 PM PDT
Newyork has started investigation because AMD is investing in New York. This is just political.

South Korea - They never provided any evidence against Intel. Like EU moronic commission, they simply
fined Intel.

Screw EU - They just want to fine US companies. I bet Apple, Google are next...
by queticomn May 22, 2009 7:40 PM PDT
@ MrSlick wheres your proof?
by Boomstickedition May 22, 2009 8:18 PM PDT
Well back in 2005 AMD did have better processors in comparison to Intel. Pentium 4 and Pentium D's were no match for the Athlon 64's and Athlon x2. Sure things changed in recent years but even though AMD had a better performing product people still got Intel processors because of the brand name. So the only reason for the deal would be for the brand name recognition of Intel. In general the average user has no idea the difference in processors unless there is a sticker on there notebook or desktop.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 May 22, 2009 10:13 PM PDT
but Apple wasn't about to offer a Pentium product, ever. They hated the Pentium, railed against it. The G5 outperformed it.

Apple went to Intel and learned what the 5 year plan was, starting with the Core Solo/Duo, and how Intel could help Apple build their products, and it worked out. AMD couldn't offer them the same roadmap, chip quantities or motherboard designs. Period.
by Boomstickedition May 23, 2009 6:34 PM PDT
Core duos still did not outperform Athlon x2's it wasn't until the core 2 duo. Apple was also hamstrung with the Intel chipsets that were definitely underpowered that is why Apple ditched Intel and went ith Nvidia with there current line of products. Apple realized how the Santa Rosa platform was lacking and Montevina was delayed for way too long. A great example were the first mac minis which had the integrated Intel graphics but now have the Nvidia integrated 9400 gpu. Most people forget about the GPU when purchasing a computer which currently is very important for video decoding.
by Sabroson May 22, 2009 10:15 PM PDT
AMD is a crying baby.

When they had better technology (quite a while back) Intel was not complaining and crying. Instead Intel beefed up their internal processes and came out with extraordinary products. Todays dominance is the result of Intel getting to work hard and beating up AMD fair and square.

AMD has devaluated their product by giving it away cheaply to compete with Intel in the 90s, and that has hurt them more than anybody else.

Historically, Apple has been a very bad partner. They never stick with a loosing company. Many ... many ... many examples can be found on this, from Motorola, to IBM, even Intel (Apple purchasing chip company). Apple does things for its own benefit and its customers. They do not care about anybody else. To imply that Apple has a never ending deal with Intel is just insane and shows how desperate AMD is.

If AMD was that good, then why not go after HP and Dell? Get them to use AMD in 80% of their products!

I can tell you this as a consumer, I see AMD on a product ... I do not buy it. (it used to be the other way around 10 years ago for me).
Reply to this comment
by ArsFragica May 23, 2009 5:40 AM PDT
Your a crying baby, obviously, you must have some personal hate against AMD, otherwise, you would know that AMD's products have the best value over Intel's.

Like AMD's Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core Processor (3.2GHz) for $260 vs. Intel Core i7 965 Processor for $999.
by pithenumber May 23, 2009 5:57 AM PDT
the Ph2 955 is $245
and it fits into the slot between the C2Q 9550 and the i7 920 in performance

its still a really nice chip for the price though
by Vegaman_Dan May 22, 2009 10:33 PM PDT
Come to think of it, AMD chipsets aren'tin iPods, iPhones, or Touch PDA's. Pehaps AMD can sue that as well. Hmm, my calculator has an Intel chipset too- I suppose AMD better sue Casio for hat too.

Or they could just build a product that customers and OEM's want to buy. Nah, suiing is much more profitable these days.
Reply to this comment
by cyclonica1980 May 22, 2009 11:41 PM PDT
AMD you want my business, build a better processor than Intell and I will buy it. Until than im sticking with my Core I7 all the way.
Reply to this comment
by ArsFragica May 23, 2009 5:44 AM PDT
AMD isn't for wealthy, ignorant people like you who buys overpriced processors than give no real substantial performance boosts over their AMD counterparts. Core i7 is the biggest rip-off ever, Phenom 2 offers the same speeds at much lower prices. AMD is for the smart-shoppers who do a little research before buying, and you'll see that AMD is the better product =).
by pithenumber May 23, 2009 5:59 AM PDT
i7 is really fast, true, too bad most people can't afford it
I'm sticking with the Ph2 720
by rpomeroy May 23, 2009 7:09 AM PDT
It appears that Tom McCoy isn't even aware of some of the history on the matter.

I worked at AMD in Austin in the early 90's. I brought in NeXT machines to the Computer Integrated Manufacturing Group as that group was exploring software platform options for their Fab 25 effort. They really liked NeXTSTEP and actually paid money to NeXT to port to the X86 architecture. That's when the "intel" port really happened. Once NeXTSTEP was ported they simply kept cross-compiling all the way through Openstep to OS X (and to some extent for HP's PA-RISC, SUN SPARC). Apple didn't need Intel's help as part of an exchange. The port was already done.

As far as an exclusive deal goes - maybe one was done but I seriously doubt it was done on the basis of Apple needing help porting.

RP
Reply to this comment
by mpitogo May 23, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
Yes agreed, the base of OS X has been on x86 since the days of Rhapsody DR1 an x86 only build. The second Rhapsody DR2 was the first PPC build. To me it just seemed reasonable to keep the x86 going in parallel. There likely would have been some porting of new PPC code to x86 but clearly Apple did this with minimal issues. Intel could have provided the engineering help and resources to ensure the transition went well and followed a strict timeline.
Showing 1 of 2 pages (67 Comments)
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

advertisement

About Nanotech - The Circuits Blog

Brooke Crothers was formerly editor-at-large at CNET News.com, an analyst at IDC (International Data Corp.) Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly (The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones), among other endeavors, including a recent hiatus from the tech industry when he co-managed an after-school math and reading center. Nanotech covers computer chip technology and how it defines the computing experience. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Nanotech - The Circuits Blog topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right