Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Apple Could Use AMD's Chips

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 21, 2006 11:28:00 PM

Don't know why Apple would want to (at this point), but here's the link:
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/060921/17341_id.html?.v=1

Quote:
While Hector did not suggest that there were any talks currently between the two companies, he noted that Apple would ultimately buy AMD chips

More about : apple amd chips

September 21, 2006 11:46:46 PM

Quote:
Unlikely, Jobs was asked this several months ago and he stated Intel's long term roadmaps were much stronger. But who know, Hector is shrill and evidently employs viral marketing techniques.


Yeah, hard to say if AMD is going to give Apple a sweetheart deal to use its chips, or if Hector is just speculating in order to get AMD's name mentioned.

Either way, this article says there is no firm commitments or timetables. Therefore, it has enough cold, hard facts for Charlie to use for an Inquirer feature. :roll: :wink:
September 21, 2006 11:57:19 PM

I can't see why they would.
Related resources
September 22, 2006 12:17:17 AM

Quote:
Within the same news day, The Inq also reports AMD Ruiz backing HP during their insider-espionage scandal. I hope this is not an endorsement of the means to the ends.

Jack


AMD seems pretty tight-lipped lately. Do you think by backing HP, this is Hector's way of dropping a hint to AMD's employees/board members?
September 22, 2006 1:12:09 AM

Sure, they COULD, but I don't see why they WOULD.

The Intel CPUs perform better than what AMD has to offer, and I'm sure that Apple gets a nice discount cause they use only Intel chips.
September 22, 2006 1:21:59 AM

Why do you stubborn AMD people refuse to understand such a simple fact!??!

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE PLATFORM, NOT THE CPU!

Intel can provide and it provides Apple with:

1. CPU
2. Chipset
3. Network solution
4. Integrated graphics solution
5. TPM
6. EFI BIOS and developer toolkits
7. Standard conformance and ultimate stability
8. Constant driver updates for all devices plus open-source drivers for 965G X3000.
9. Documentation and tools for developers (compiler and high performance libraries)
10. New instruction set extensions (take SSE4 as a recent example) and tools to utilize them from day one without much effort.

On the other hand AMD can provide Apple with:

1. CPU

And that is where the list ends.
September 22, 2006 1:39:08 AM

Quote:
Why do you stubborn AMD people refuse to understand such a simple fact!??!

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE PLATFORM, NOT THE CPU!

Intel can provide and it provides Apple with:

1. CPU
2. Chipset
3. Network solution
4. Integrated graphics solution
5. TPM
6. EFI BIOS and developer toolkits
7. Standard conformance and ultimate stability
8. Constant driver updates for all devices plus open-source drivers for 965G X3000.
9. Documentation and tools for developers (compiler and high performance libraries)
10. New instruction set extensions (take SSE4 as a recent example) and tools to utilize them from day one without much effort.

On the other hand AMD can provide Apple with:

1. CPU

And that is where the list ends.


Hey Dumbass, AMD could provide Apple with

1. CPU
2. Chipset(AMD or ATI chipset W/e its going to be called)
3 Integrated Graphics
4. Standalone Graphics (ATI or AMDgraphics)
5. A bigger list of things you or me know about
6. Give Apple back the brand of ATI in a mask of AMD, because Apple users are very much loyal to ATI graphics and what it has provided Apple computers the last few years and what it still is.

7. Hypertransport
8. Standard conformance and ultimate stability(wtf??) AMD became this big because they provided this and Intel did'nt during the last 10 years or so(dumba$$)
September 22, 2006 2:36:56 AM

Quote:
Hey Dumbass, AMD could provide Apple with
...
AMD became this big because they provided this and Intel did'nt during the last 10 years or so(dumba$$)


Hey kid, your mom is Dumbass and you are even bigger Dumbass since you fell out of her Dumbass.

Now that we are done with the insults (remember that you asked for it) lets discuss the matter (that little of it you could provide):

AMD could provide, not can provide, not is providing, but COULD and not in the near future, nor in the proper amount.

Moreover, they could provide most of it thanks to acquiring ATI and not because of their own skills.

Quote:
5. A bigger list of things you or me know about


If you don't know about something, then don't bring it in as an argument. It is like bringing in a gun to a duel and you don't know how to unlock, reload and to pull a trigger.

Quote:
6. Give Apple back the brand of ATI in a mask of AMD, because Apple users are very much loyal to ATI graphics and what it has provided Apple computers the last few years and what it still is.


Apple being used for professional work (mostly workstations and 3D) is much better off with nVidia whose OpenGL capabilities and compliance are way ahead of ATI which still has buggy OpenGL implementation. Whoever works with 3D can confirm this to you. Serious people prefer nVidia, not ATI. Furthermore, ATI latest chips are hot. And finally, Intel was the first one to offer unified shader architecture and future dx10 compliance with their 965G X3000 integrated GPU.
On a side note, ATI was always selling expensive crap for Apple which was clocked lower and was incompatible with the PC even though it used the same interface.

Quote:
7. Hypertransport


Apple could use Hypertransport even without AMD. It is an open standard.

Quote:
8. Standard conformance and ultimate stability(wtf??)


Check this as an example of how a serious company does it:
http://support.intel.com/design/motherbd/bx/bx_industry...
http://support.intel.com/design/motherbd/bx/bx_regulato...

In other words, someone who builds custom systems and orders hundreds of thousands of components like Apple does, has already come to expect to see such an extensive list of certifications, safety and regulatory compliance and industry specifications.

To summarize, and to underline that which you completely ignored -- Apple needed support for X86 transition.

Neither AMD nor ATI have proper developer support. Neither of them has up to date and concise documentation and neither of them has their own optimizing compiler which is absurd. On the other side but Intel and nVidia have all of that.

Both AMD and ATI are full of hardware engineers (which are very good) but they suck at software and developer support side and they suck hard.

To a gamer that is completely irrelevant but for someone who is writing operating system such as Apple -- it matters a lot.

So, please do us a favor -- crawl back under your rock until you inform yourself better and then come back to a civilized discussion without calling anyone Dumbass, Dumbass.
September 22, 2006 3:50:03 AM

It's just a claim by AMD which doesn't mean anything without Apple support.

In any case, all these AMD tidbits, the Apple talk, the HP talk, the retalk about Torrenza is all a ploy to get media attention. For whatever reason, AMD decided not to set up their own event at the upcoming IDF so unorthodox statements are the only way to distract people from Intel announcements. Personally, I'm disappointed since I always thought Mr. Ruiz was more disiplined. He was certainly non-commital about possible Dell deals before as to not get people's hopes up and now he's convinced that an AMD-Apple partnership is inevitable. Hopefully, the Dell and ATI deals and the promise of K8L haven't made him overconfident.
September 22, 2006 5:54:07 AM

Quote:
CEO Hector Ruiz said at a dinner in San Francisco last night that Apple Computer (NASDAQ: AAPL - News) may eventually use the company’s processors “at some point in the future,”

And what does "may" mean? Sounds like Hector is giving tentative permission.
The whole thing seems rather absurd when we don't even know the context of the question that Ruiz responded to.
I would bet that someone asked Hector if Apple would ever use AMD chips.
Whether Hector gave permission or not, I think Steve is still too pissed at IBM to go anywhere near thier allies.
September 22, 2006 6:09:03 AM

Quote:

Intel can provide and it provides Apple with:

1. CPU
2. Chipset
3. Network solution
4. Integrated graphics solution
5. TPM
6. EFI BIOS and developer toolkits
7. Standard conformance and ultimate stability
8. Constant driver updates for all devices plus open-source drivers for 965G X3000.
9. Documentation and tools for developers (compiler and high performance libraries)
10. New instruction set extensions (take SSE4 as a recent example) and tools to utilize them from day one without much effort.

On the other hand AMD can provide Apple with:

1. CPU

And that is where the list ends.


And this is also the propaganda in favor of intel because AMD also can deliver points 7, 8, 9 and 10 allready.
It is uttermost a question of apple and AMD wanting to work together or providing a platform for each other! both manufacturers are capable partners, it is just happening that Intel has a lead for the moment, not the incompetence of AMD, en contraire!!
September 22, 2006 6:53:03 AM

The one view some of you forget is If apple uses AMD. Who dose it help. Both Amd and Apple. Let face it apple been on the sideline for the last 20 years or more. What 5% to 10% Use Apple computer. Well having Apple go from It old setup to Intel and can run windows xp as well as Apple software. But alot of people seeing this as a win win deal. They can run both Apple and Mirosoft and linux all one system.

Now if Amd is toss in. People dont have to go sorry I dont like apple for it dont have a Amd chip in it. It would look bad if Amd next setup is faster then the fastest intel chip. Then people who want to buy apple computer dont get the fastest chip on the market and who looks Bad? Well Apple Basicly it would look like Dell for the last few years. Also it can help Apple prices.

Intel fanboy can disagree with me on this. But Amd and Intel had good years and bad.
September 22, 2006 6:53:19 AM

Aside from all the technological reasons that everyone has given for Apple not using AMD chips, there is also the fact that Apple have made a big deal about it not just being a 'New Mac' - it's an 'Intel Mac'. All of the software that is now universal is tagged as 'Works with Intel Macs'.

My point is, a lot of Apple users are Apple users because they aren't interested in hardware...these new systems are 'Intel Macs', not 'x86 Macs'.
September 22, 2006 7:03:37 AM

When I will se an Aple using a powerfull AMD chip and Windows OS... that will be the day that... I will buy it. :D 
September 22, 2006 7:04:49 AM

Meh, worldwide Apple has less than a 2.5% market share. I know it has slightly more over in the US, but contrary to popular American opinion the USA != The World.

As such, who really cares what chips they use? :) 
September 22, 2006 7:29:22 AM

I thought Steve had his own compilers.
September 22, 2006 7:39:06 AM

Quote:
Meh, worldwide Apple has less than a 2.5% market share. I know it has slightly more over in the US, but contrary to popular American opinion the USA != The World.

As such, who really cares what chips they use?


It may seem like a small number, but Apple is hardly small fry in the computing world is it. So in answer to your question, loads and loads of people care what chips they use.

One facet of the Macintosh advantage is that the software is designed with one platform in mind - and if they have AMD and Intel based machines available then I wouldn't be surprised to see OS X become less stable.
September 22, 2006 7:49:16 AM

Quote:
Meh, worldwide Apple has less than a 2.5% market share. I know it has slightly more over in the US, but contrary to popular American opinion the USA != The World.

As such, who really cares what chips they use?


It may seem like a small number, but Apple is hardly small fry in the computing world is it. So in answer to your question, loads and loads of people care what chips they use.

Apple IS small fry, its just that Jobs has a big mouth on him and therefore Apple makes a disproportionate amount of noise.

Dont forget that with Bootcamp there are Apple users running Windows now anyway, so the share of the market thats actually both Apple AND OSX is even less than 2.5%

Coupled with the 'fashion' obsession with Apples overpriced and not-all-that-amazing Ipods, and this is why we hear of them all the time.

Last I checked, Transmeta/VIA had a 1.5% market share, not far behind Apple. I therefore consider them in the same league.
September 22, 2006 8:10:22 AM

...and you have Mac users under Linux (one is called Linus Torvalds).

Right now, the prediction has been confirmed: Apple is using Ati chips, right? Well then, AMD bought Ati a little while ago - 'youse Macs are belong to us'.

Considering Apple invented pluggable, consumer-friendly high-speed serial transaction (say: IEEE1394 or Firewire), and now AMD can provide CPU+chipsets+graphics+sound+... In essence, whole integrated systems using serial peripheral busses (instead of the motherboard design nightmare Intel's FSB is), well then, it's not so far-fetched to think Apple may be making use of AMD's hardware to build, say, very small yet entirely functional -and even quite powerful- machines.
September 22, 2006 8:58:55 AM

this thread is FILLED with fanboys.

im a mac and PC user.

my laptop is a Powerbook, my workstation is a Powermac and my play computer is a x86 running windows.

ill tell you this from a 10 year vet in the Apple computer world, I HATE NVIDIA.

they run hot, cant buy an upgrade for any of my mac's that i would be proud of putting in my powermac.

ATI always has a "good" *.* mac world good *.* price to performance upgrade compaired to nvidia.

I would love to see some AMD cpu's in apple products but remember amd=ATI . ATI makes graphic chips. what is apple selling alot of now???? IPODS I wouldnt be surprised if they start using AMD chips in ipods and ATI GPU's.
September 22, 2006 11:39:23 AM

Quote:
this thread is FILLED with fanboys.

im a mac and PC user.

my laptop is a Powerbook, my workstation is a Powermac and my play computer is a x86 running windows.

ill tell you this from a 10 year vet in the Apple computer world, I HATE NVIDIA.

they run hot, cant buy an upgrade for any of my mac's that i would be proud of putting in my powermac.

ATI always has a "good" *.* mac world good *.* price to performance upgrade compaired to nvidia.

I would love to see some AMD cpu's in apple products but remember amd=ATI . ATI makes graphic chips. what is apple selling alot of now???? IPODS I wouldnt be surprised if they start using AMD chips in ipods and ATI GPU's.


Someone who know's what i was trying to Argue with "levee" or w/e name
ATI's and Nvidia Prices are a Bargin compared to what Apple gives Their bare minimum computers, which are on average Super-1500$ range, So a ATI's price ranges are pretty minimalist. Who Cares,? If ATI runs a few degrees hotter, They gave the performance and reliability to Apple Computer systems.
September 22, 2006 12:06:22 PM

Quote:
Hey Dumbass, AMD could provide Apple with
...
AMD became this big because they provided this and Intel did'nt during the last 10 years or so(dumba$$)


Hey kid, your mom is Dumbass and you are even bigger Dumbass since you fell out of her Dumbass.

Now that we are done with the insults (remember that you asked for it) lets discuss the matter (that little of it you could provide):

AMD could provide, not can provide, not is providing, but COULD and not in the near future, nor in the proper amount.

Moreover, they could provide most of it thanks to acquiring ATI and not because of their own skills.

Quote:
5. A bigger list of things you or me know about


If you don't know about something, then don't bring it in as an argument. It is like bringing in a gun to a duel and you don't know how to unlock, reload and to pull a trigger.

Quote:
6. Give Apple back the brand of ATI in a mask of AMD, because Apple users are very much loyal to ATI graphics and what it has provided Apple computers the last few years and what it still is.


Apple being used for professional work (mostly workstations and 3D) is much better off with nVidia whose OpenGL capabilities and compliance are way ahead of ATI which still has buggy OpenGL implementation. Whoever works with 3D can confirm this to you. Serious people prefer nVidia, not ATI. Furthermore, ATI latest chips are hot. And finally, Intel was the first one to offer unified shader architecture and future dx10 compliance with their 965G X3000 integrated GPU.
On a side note, ATI was always selling expensive crap for Apple which was clocked lower and was incompatible with the PC even though it used the same interface.

Quote:
7. Hypertransport


Apple could use Hypertransport even without AMD. It is an open standard.

Quote:
8. Standard conformance and ultimate stability(wtf??)


Check this as an example of how a serious company does it:
http://support.intel.com/design/motherbd/bx/bx_industry...
http://support.intel.com/design/motherbd/bx/bx_regulato...

In other words, someone who builds custom systems and orders hundreds of thousands of components like Apple does, has already come to expect to see such an extensive list of certifications, safety and regulatory compliance and industry specifications.

To summarize, and to underline that which you completely ignored -- Apple needed support for X86 transition.

Neither AMD nor ATI have proper developer support. Neither of them has up to date and concise documentation and neither of them has their own optimizing compiler which is absurd. On the other side but Intel and nVidia have all of that.

Both AMD and ATI are full of hardware engineers (which are very good) but they suck at software and developer support side and they suck hard.

To a gamer that is completely irrelevant but for someone who is writing operating system such as Apple -- it matters a lot.

So, please do us a favor -- crawl back under your rock until you inform yourself better and then come back to a civilized discussion without calling anyone Dumbass, Dumbass.


Half of what Intel has was bought. Also, only 10% of Intel's SKUs are faster than AMD. AND Dell is using them now so the sky is the limit.
September 22, 2006 12:29:09 PM

Quote:
this thread is FILLED with fanboys.

im a mac and PC user.

my laptop is a Powerbook, my workstation is a Powermac and my play computer is a x86 running windows.

ill tell you this from a 10 year vet in the Apple computer world, I HATE NVIDIA.

they run hot, cant buy an upgrade for any of my mac's that i would be proud of putting in my powermac.

ATI always has a "good" *.* mac world good *.* price to performance upgrade compaired to nvidia.

I would love to see some AMD cpu's in apple products but remember amd=ATI . ATI makes graphic chips. what is apple selling alot of now???? IPODS I wouldnt be surprised if they start using AMD chips in ipods and ATI GPU's.

You can upgrade the components of a Mac? Thats news to me. How do GFX chips and IPods tie in together? AMD doesn't even have any small scale chips to sell for IPods (you know like the Xscale chips from Intel).
Apple will still use the ARM 7TDMI CPU's for a while. The platform for the IPod is way different than anything AMD has to offer. They'll be asking Intel to make CPU's for the IPod before they ask AMD.
September 22, 2006 1:31:58 PM

Quote:
Apple IS small fry, its just that Jobs has a big mouth on him and therefore Apple makes a disproportionate amount of noise.

Oh really? Apple's market cap ~ 63.68 billion (link)
AMD's market cap ~ 13.11 billion (link)

Like I have said at other times: Apple Computer can buy AMD, lock, stock (so to speak) and barrel. Then they would have their own CPU manufacturer. And AMD fans would be buying Apple Athlons, Semprons and Opterons.
September 22, 2006 2:13:31 PM

Quote:
Oh really? Apple's market cap ~ 63.68 billion (link)
AMD's market cap ~ 13.11 billion (link)

Like I have said at other times: Apple Computer can buy AMD, lock, stock (so to speak) and barrel. Then they would have their own CPU manufacturer. And AMD fans would be buying Apple Athlons, Semprons and Opterons.


hmmm... Thats and apples to oranges comparison if ever I saw one.

AMD supply mainly CPUs, whereas Apple supply the whole computer. (And don't forget the near ubiquitous Ipod/Itunes!)

I think the price difference between a CPU and the rest of the machine is quite large.

Forgive my naive grasp of economics, but I believe that wouldbe one factor in the difference in market cap.

Also, I can't see AMD being bought by Apple. That would be a very dark day :twisted:
September 22, 2006 3:04:37 PM

Quote:
Meh, worldwide Apple has less than a 2.5% market share. I know it has slightly more over in the US, but contrary to popular American opinion the USA != The World.

As such, who really cares what chips they use?


It may seem like a small number, but Apple is hardly small fry in the computing world is it. So in answer to your question, loads and loads of people care what chips they use.

One facet of the Macintosh advantage is that the software is designed with one platform in mind - and if they have AMD and Intel based machines available then I wouldn't be surprised to see OS X become less stable.

The stability has nothing to do with the CPU. The lack of stability in x86 machines running windows is that any random retarded company can make a component, write some shitty drivers and put it out there. Apple tightly controls their hardware. So in the end it doesn't matter who makes it, because apple will make sure the drivers and hardware are very stable.

And since when has apple been all about peak performance? I hardly see how the platform would matter much if top end performance is the mitigating factor. They both perform well in the windows market, so there's no reason they couldn't do the same in the OSX world. It'll just take AMD some time to get to where they can fully assemble the solution that apple would require.
September 22, 2006 10:19:58 PM

Quote:
Apple IS small fry, its just that Jobs has a big mouth on him and therefore Apple makes a disproportionate amount of noise.

Oh really? Apple's market cap ~ 63.68 billion (link)
AMD's market cap ~ 13.11 billion (link)

Like I have said at other times: Apple Computer can buy AMD, lock, stock (so to speak) and barrel. Then they would have their own CPU manufacturer. And AMD fans would be buying Apple Athlons, Semprons and Opterons.

Ok, and what percentage of that 63.68bn comes from Ipods and Itunes, and apples various other activites, and what percentage comes from Computers?

I'd also call Wal-Mart small fry in the PC sales leagues, but they could probably also buy AMD if they so desired.
September 22, 2006 10:24:36 PM

Quote:
ill tell you this from a 10 year vet in the Apple computer world, I HATE NVIDIA.

they run hot, cant buy an upgrade for any of my mac's that i would be proud of putting in my powermac.


While I fully agree that the x1900/x1950s are the faster GPUs for DirectX apps, DirectX is not an option on a Mac.

nVidia are still the better option for OpenGL, ATi have done a good job of optimising for Doom3 but thats just one game.

Also, the x1900/x1950s run FAR hotter than the 7900GT/GTX series.

Therefore, in the Mac/OpenGL world, the 7900GTX is Faster, and Cooler, defeating your argument somewhat.

TBH I'm not sure of the availability and pricing of Mac compatible gfx cards, but then there are very few decent games to run on them anyway so I dont suppose its too much of an issue
September 23, 2006 12:17:27 AM

Quote:
And this is also the propaganda in favor of intel because AMD also can deliver points 7, 8, 9 and 10 allready.


JumpingJack already answered this so I won't repeat. However:

Quote:
10. This is irrelevant....


I do not agree with you on this Jack.

No matter how irrelevant the instruction set extensions may be, proper documentation and support in developer toolchain isn't.

Quote:
I thought Steve had his own compilers.


They use customized gcc 4.0 for the OS at the moment.

@macer1:
I was talking about professional usage of video cards in 3D. Your personal experience with nVidia may be worse depending on what you do with it. But if someone offered me new Woodcrest based Mac Pro with Quadro FX 4500 and another one with X1900 I would pick the one with nVidia in a blink of an eye.

Quote:
They gave the performance and reliability to Apple Computer systems.


Then answer this:

Why people are complaining about corrupted .inf file in Catalyst 6.9 these days?

Why I had Star Wars Knights Of Old Republic crash so many times while I used Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro and any version of Catalyst other than the 4.2?

Why if you have >60GB NTFS partition and ATI card and you turn on large system cache in system properties ATI video driver can corrupt your data?

Quote:
Also, only 10% of Intel's SKUs are faster than AMD. AND Dell is using them now so the sky is the limit.


And how many SKUs each of them has?
What percentage of AMD's SKUs is currently faster than Intel's?

Another thing people are forgetting is this:

Apple wanted to get away from IBM. It did so by selecting Intel. If they selected AMD they will still have to deal with IBM indirectly.
September 23, 2006 2:41:55 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4

It seems that SSE4 has been renamed SSSE3 or Supplemental SSE3. That's kind of ironic considering SSSE3 contains 16 new instructions which is more than the original SSE3's 13. Not quite sure what they do though, but it'll be a while before programs begin to support it.
!