Apple To Use NVIDIA Chipsets?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Could Apple really be going with NVIDIA for chipsets in the near future? PC Perspective thinks that they just might and outlines the reasons why they think Apple could switch to NVIDIA in their latest editorial.

NVIDIA is a much more reasonable solution for Apple; and what do we see here, just released yesterday? NVIDIA has announced a new line up of mobile chipsets and mobility GPUs, right on schedule: the GeForce 9800M and 9700M parts join the existing GeForce 9600M to round out a complete refresh in their lineup.
Click to expand...
 
If I were Apple, I think I would wait to see how nVidia takes care of their current Laptop Graphics disaster, first.
 
What do you mean if you were Apple? Apple fanboys will buy it even if it looks like an iRobot cleaner that goes and terminate kittens!
 
Yep, I hope they get something more reliable than the nVidia chipset Dell are using in the XPS 1330M - I've replaced five of them this week alone.

And tomorrow I'm replacing a guys 7950 in an XPS 1710 for the third time in three weeks (last one failed within 24 hours) and that machine is a replacement for his first 1710 which went back after smoke started coming out from the GPU fan vent.....;)
 
I laughed when I saw that title.

I laughed because if it actually does come true, we're going to love news articles down the road.

There's a reason why lots of us recommend intel chipset over nvidia's chipset.
 
And...
Nvidia isn't going to get a license and SDK for Nehalem. So, do you think that Apple is just gonna use Socket 775 and Mobile CPU's????
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkay
 
I hope they arnt really considering this. Even though I dont own a Mac or have any plans to, I still know this is a bad idea. Im on a Nvidia Intel chipset now and I really dont like it. This is the most unstable motherboard I have ever owned (EVGA 680i). Its pretty much known that Intel chipsets are rock stable. It doesnt matter how much you dislike Intel, this is the truth, whether or not you want to admit it.
 
WHAT APPLE SHOULD DO:

this is just perfect, go all 3 mb ?

Imac(if i'm right they are screen/comp in one =) )

Who needs 3 ghz intel core 2 in them anywayz......

well, lets go :
Amd 780G/GX etc.
Amd 4850.
And good to go ?

the powerconsumtion is low, uvd ready, fast igp, and decent cpu... enough for everyday tasks.

lets do math 45 watts+15(PEAK) 1 watt idle for chipset, intel cannot match it, means less cooling, means, simple design, and more igp power means you can actually do casual gaming on a imac!


rest is have to be intel for now...
 
Apple could go with AMD and still sell well because people don't buy their products based on the CPU reputation. They sold a lot of units before eventhough they only came with a PowerPC CPU.
 
rolf nvidia chipsets. nvidia has always been known for there rock solid chipsets. apple should stick to their toy business selling overpriced shitty mp3s players and phones.
 
alg7_munif said:
Apple could go with AMD and still sell well because people don't buy their products based on the CPU reputation.
Click to expand...
If Apple wanted to go with lower performing and hotter running systems, that could work out great. :p Wishing it to happen doesn't make it likely.
 
It would be good news for the OSx86 people, since nforce has always been a bitch to get working compared to intel chipsets.
 
pxc said:
If Apple wanted to go with lower performing and hotter running systems, that could work out great. :p Wishing it to happen doesn't make it likely.
Click to expand...

Wishful? Yes.
Impossible? Not really

It is true than Intel CPU is faster but there are things to consider too.

1) Intel CPU is faster but is it much faster when we consider that they are running at stock speed in a mac. Even the older AMD X2 is not that far behind at stock speed and the Apple marketing department could always spin a triple core phenom to look like an "upgrade". Apple could sell shit in a white box and people would still buy it.

2) AMD has a much better IGP compared to Intel which could make the faster Intel CPU become a moot point in term of graphic processing and with UVD it will be better with HD viewing. A Mac is already "well known" for its graphics and video capability so it would be a better choice to use a 780G chipset instead of X3100.

3) Apple could as well choose to use nVidia chipset but if they go with AMD, they only need to deal with one company instead of dealing with two companies. AMD now has a platform so they could give a more competitive price for the whole platform compared to using a CPU from one company and the chipset from another.
 
alg7_munif said:
Apple could go with AMD and still sell well because people don't buy their products based on the CPU reputation. They sold a lot of units before eventhough they only came with a PowerPC CPU.
Click to expand...

yeah until Apple decided to market Intel like a whore.... now all mac users go Intel Intel Intel...
 
alg7_munif said:
2) AMD has a much better IGP compared to Intel which could make the faster Intel CPU become a moot point in term of graphic processing and with UVD it will be better with HD viewing. A Mac is already "well known" for its graphics and video capability so it would be a better choice to use a 780G chipset instead of X3100.
Click to expand...

Much better than Intel's IGPs ? Yes. Much better than NVIDIA's IGP's ? No. Have a look at NVIDIA's 8200 or 8300 IGP and even though overall the 780G has the edge, the difference is marginal in most cases. It's win some, lose some.

alg7_munif said:
3) Apple could as well choose to use nVidia chipset but if they go with AMD, they only need to deal with one company instead of dealing with two companies. AMD now has a platform so they could give a more competitive price for the whole platform compared to using a CPU from one company and the chipset from another.
Click to expand...

And that's precisely why the speculation in the article makes sense. Apple is committed to Intel right now and to choose AMD, means they would need to change everything to AMD based products and that's unlikely to happen, especially with Intel's pressure behind the scenes no doubt.
 
Silus said:
And that's precisely why the speculation in the article makes sense. Apple is committed to Intel right now and to choose AMD, means they would need to change everything to AMD based products and that's unlikely to happen, especially with Intel's pressure behind the scenes no doubt.
Click to expand...

NAH... I don't believe Intel would indulge in shady business practices like that.... they're good people :p
 
i really think that amd will be in the future mac books; my reasoning is most of the current lineup uses ati gpu's. granted a 780g mobile for intel would be earth shattering and it is a two chip solution though if it is an apple exclusive it will not hurt amd's mobile offerings

Another reason look at the lasso xgp box and imagine a apple logo on it yes it fits. the 780g is the most capable mobile chipset today with a fast igp and the mobile 3800 series that does not suck that much power from a battery. In a few months we will know :)

to note someone [HINT HINT] should do a mobile chipset round up with a chart comparing the chipset offerings from nv, amd, intel and via complete with mobile gpu's.
 
gaspah said:
NAH... I don't believe Intel would indulge in shady business practices like that.... they're good people :p
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but this doesn't seem to be a shady practice at all.
My company has a product and another company wants it as one of the components in one of their products. It makes sense that I want to keep this customer, so that I can continue supplying them with my products and make money out of it. For being a good customer, I would probably even reward them with special prices or other attractive deals. It's how business is done everywhere in the world. Keeping customers happy, is the key for a successful business.

Shady practice would be for Intel to pay Apple NOT to use competition's chips, when Intel had no deal with Apple in the first place. And even then, Apple would share responsability for the shady practice, if it accepted the "pay-off".
 
Silus said:
Shady practice would be for Intel to pay Apple NOT to use competition's chips, when Intel had no deal with Apple in the first place. And even then, Apple would share responsability for the shady practice, if it accepted the "pay-off".
Click to expand...

I think Intel are more known for threats for not being exclusively Intel

I think moreso Intel would say, deal with AMD for ANY product whatsoever and either we'll deny you access to our technology altogether or charge a much higher rate for our parts..
 
Silus said:
Shady practice would be for Intel to pay Apple NOT to use competition's chips, when Intel had no deal with Apple in the first place. And even then, Apple would share responsability for the shady practice, if it accepted the "pay-off".
Click to expand...

I think Intel are more known for threats for not being exclusively Intel

I think moreso Intel would say, deal with AMD for ANY product whatsoever and either we'll deny you access to our technology altogether or charge a much higher rate for our parts..

Although, AMD are hardly saints at the moment... Just today I got a personal email from our AMD Rep (we do almost exlusively AMD processor based PCs, but they know we jump left to right on the GPU side of the market)... you know what was in the email? Smear tactics, featuring a long write-up about the recent problems with Nvidia Mobile GPUs and stating that Nvidia are untrustworthy because they deny the problem even exists despite a patch being released to fix this 'non-existant' problem. I thought this was a terrible business practice...
 
gaspah said:
Although, AMD are hardly saints at the moment... Just today I got a personal email from our AMD Rep (we do almost exlusively AMD processor based PCs, but they know we jump left to right on the GPU side of the market)... you know what was in the email? Smear tactics, featuring a long write-up about the recent problems with Nvidia Mobile GPUs and stating that Nvidia are untrustworthy because they deny the problem even exists despite a patch being released to fix this 'non-existant' problem. I thought this was a terrible business practice...
Click to expand...

No company is. They are in it for the money. AMD/ATI is no different, especially in a time where they need money more than ever. And yes, it's terrible when we talk about it in here, but in the real world, it's how things are done everyday. One company's shortcoming, is another company's point of attack.
 
Silus said:
Much better than Intel's IGPs ? Yes. Much better than NVIDIA's IGP's ? No. Have a look at NVIDIA's 8200 or 8300 IGP and even though overall the 780G has the edge, the difference is marginal in most cases. It's win some, lose some.



And that's precisely why the speculation in the article makes sense. Apple is committed to Intel right now and to choose AMD, means they would need to change everything to AMD based products and that's unlikely to happen, especially with Intel's pressure behind the scenes no doubt.
Click to expand...

So Intel wouldn't pressure them if they choose an nVidia chipset instead of an Intel chipset?

That is why I said it is better to deal with only one company than two. If they go with an nVidia chipset, Intel might pressure them with a higher priing on the CPU but if they go with an all AMD platform, Intel higher CPU price won't have any effect on the product.

Changing an Intel chipset with an nVidia chipset is actually not that simple, it would possibly require a new mobo as well because the chipsets would not be pin compatible any way. A new mobo could also mean a new layout so it would make almost no different to stay with an Intel CPU or to change it with an AMD CPU.
 
alg7_munif said:
So Intel wouldn't pressure them if they choose an nVidia chipset instead of an Intel chipset?
Click to expand...

Probably, but it's less of a hassle to give in on an IGP (which they know they can't compete with NVIDIA or AMD), than it is to lose the CPU supplying deal altogether, which would be the case if Apple selected AMD.
 
Silus said:
Probably, but it's less of a hassle to give in on an IGP (which they know they can't compete with NVIDIA or AMD), than it is to lose the CPU supplying deal altogether, which would be the case if Apple selected AMD.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if they are willing to lose the chipset. I think that we will see soon.
 
lets see how this mobile crap plays out. I just ordered a new dell laptop for my friend's neice and purposely left off the nvidia graphics becuase of the recent problems
 
rodsfree said:
And...
Nvidia isn't going to get a license and SDK for Nehalem. So, do you think that Apple is just gonna use Socket 775 and Mobile CPU's????
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkay
Click to expand...

i thought they were given it already and intel got sli ?
 
Silus said:
Probably, but it's less of a hassle to give in on an IGP (which they know they can't compete with NVIDIA or AMD), than it is to lose the CPU supplying deal altogether, which would be the case if Apple selected AMD.
Click to expand...

your saying intel cant compete with NVIDIA and ATI IGP? intel has the largest market share for IGP ?
 
MrGuvernment said:
your saying intel cant compete with NVIDIA and ATI IGP? intel has the largest market share for IGP ?
Click to expand...

In terms of better performing IGPs, yes, they can't and they know it. Market share is another matter.
 
Silus said:
In terms of better performing IGPs, yes, they can't and they know it. Market share is another matter.
Click to expand...

IGP market share and non integrated are very diff.....


i know ATI is up there but intel i recall still has the largest IGP market out there.
 
MrGuvernment said:
i know ATI is up there but intel i recall still has the largest IGP market out there.
Click to expand...
Largest share overall too.

Code: 
(JPR figures)
Overall graphics Q1'08

AMD    18.6%
Intel  42.7%
Nvidia 32.7%
Matrox  0.1%
SiS     1.7%
VIA/S3  4.1%

Desktop graphics Q1'08

AMD    19%
Intel  38%
Nvidia 36%

Notebooks graphics Q1'08 
 
AMD    17.4%
Intel  52.9%
Nvidia 27.0%
 
Discrete graphics Q1'08

AMD    35%
Nvidia 65%
Q2 figures should be out soon.
 
alg7_munif said:
Wishful? Yes.
Impossible? Not really

It is true than Intel CPU is faster but there are things to consider too.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Every point you bring up, correct or not, is irrelevant as long as AMD chips run hotter than Intel's. Efficient and fast mobile CPUs are the main reason why Intel is used in Macs right now. Every single Mac, aside from quad-core Xeons in the Mac Pro, is either an ultraslim desktop or notebook that uses mobile CPUs. They run relatively cool and are very heat and energy efficient. IBM failed to deliver PPC chips that could run cool (you never saw a G5 in a notebook) and Motorola's CPUs stagnated for years, setting Mac performance years behind (it was the main reason Apple started going multi-CPU in their towers years ago; Motorola simply didn't deliver faster CPUs often enough so they had to resort to hacky workarounds).

Intel can give both, and it is something that AMD still lags behind them in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top