AMD Inside Apple in 2009?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The author of this editorial admits that Apple using AMD processors probably isn’t in the cards right now but he does his best to explain why it should be.

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.
Click to expand...
 
intel makes video processors... they just suck, across the board.

Nah, intel is too poche, AMD isnt cool enough to be in the apple club.
 
I'm thinking if AMD didn't lay an egg with the K8L/K10, they woulda been in Apple first. Course it seems Jobs & co were already following the Pentium M (Dothan in particular) and the original Core Duo's success.

When you consider that Apple made that move back in summer 2005 (so you would think they've been researching this since late 2004 at least), then AMD really shit the bed. Just keep in mind when A64 came out and how much it had coasted since then. Also, consider that AMD didn't become "DAAMIT" until middle of 2006, when Apple was already selling Woodcrest Mac Pro.
 
Yeah, don't think I'll want a Mac any more with AMD processors than I do with Intel.

I try to give Mac a chance, the cost is just too much. I configured a Mac Pro for video editing, and it was over $11K! I can build a better workstation for several thousand less. I can't blame them too much though. I configured an HP workstation, and it was way pricier than building it myself as well.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Is someone forgetting about VIA? And since when has Nvidia made desktop CPUs?

These statements might be correct
"AMD is the only one of the Big FOUR PC CHIPSET AND GRAPHICS suppliers (the other THREE being VIA, Intel and Nvidia) that makes both CHIPSETS and GPUs."
OR
"AMD is the only one of the Big Three PC processor suppliers (the other two being Intel and VIA) that makes both CPUs and GPUs"
If you wanted to cut Nvidia out of the sentence completely.

But Just when get the impression that the writer is some idiot mac fanboy that doesn't have a real clue about hardware, I decide to try to click the link that is his name at the top of the article. and I found that the last story he wrote was this http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10129923-64.html?tag=mncol;title
 
It would be interesting to see how well AMD would be doing today if Apple had gone with them instead of Intel.

If they switched today though, Apple would end up have the same supply problems they had with Motorola/IBM and the PPC, since there's no guarantee AMD is going to dig themselves out of the hole they're in.
 
When I read that I started thinking since when does Nvidia make CPUs, did they buy somebody out and I wasn't aware of it. Glad to know that I wasn't behind on the times, or if they do make CPUs that i'm not the only one that doesn't know that.
 
AMD doesn't sound good enough to be in an Apple. Hey, Apple could raise sales if they started using Starbucks Processors in their machines...
 
Apple can just tell their users that AMD is twice as good, and then they can charge a lot more for them. It worked when they used IBM processors, and worked again when they switched to Intel. Apple fans will believe them, silly things like honest benchmarks don't matter to them.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
intel makes video processors... they just suck, across the board.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Intel's integrated solutions aren't intended for high-performance applications, but rather, doing just enough without consuming much power.
 
Not going to happen for one major reason: AMD still doesn't offer a mobile CPU that is efficient as far as processing power per watt as Intel's mobile CPUs are. With the exception being the dual quad-core Xeons in the Mac Pros, the bulk of the processors in Apple products are mobile CPUs. Based on how the product lines stand now, they're better as far as keeping heat down in those thin enclosures, and better as far as battery life in notebooks.

Then there is the issue of AMD's fab capacity. Despite them building more fabs, it is still enough of an issue where other high volume companies like Dell or HP continue to be wary of offering more products with AMD CPUs in them due to concerns of them being able to supply enough. Same applies here.

As far as video goes, seems like keeping it all under one roof isn't much of a consideration at all since all of their integrated boards are using nvidia. The upcoming iMac and (finally) Mac Mini updates are supposedly using the same nvidia GPUs that the current Macbook line is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top