Apple Considering Moving Macs Away From Intel Chips

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"would allow Apple to further distinguish its laptops and desktops from competitors that run Intel's chips and Microsoft's Windows software,"

Can't the same be said about AMD though?

Anyway, for Apples purposes, it makes sense to move to AMD. AMD CPUs and APUs are budget processors that currently offer better performance to cost ratio than Intel. Intel still has catching up to do with its embedded GPU architecture and seeing how most Mac products don't have dedicated graphics (only the higher model variants of the macbook pro or Mac Pros offered dedicated.

I just can't see the actual prices changing from a consumer standpoint. Have a feeling this is more to do with maximizing profit margins while also claiming (as Apple likes to always do) "2x + faster Graphics power than previous gen product line'.

 
[citation][nom]MordeaniisChaos[/nom]So, to set yourself apart, you're going to switch to the company that is no longer trying to compete with Intel's performance? You're basically going to the shit brand just to set yourself apart. This is a stupid thing to even consider.[/citation]

AMD's Trinity is nothing to sneeze at. Intel has no answer with a more expensive and power-hungry dedicated GPU.
 
[citation][nom]heinz81[/nom]AMD went up 3.21% on the date of this blurb. Unfortunately, that's only $0.10 to rise to $3.22. In April the stock sold for $8. MidnightTrader:"AMD is still verging on irrelevancy and we certainly don't see any positive near-term fundamental catalysts."It added: "But our sense is that the keys to our long-held bearish view - ongoing execution problems, a total lack of a compelling data center offering, poor competitive positioning in PCs against INTC and no viable mobility products - are generally well understood by investors."[/citation]
I am expecting that 3rd quarter report will be very poor; massive debt, decreased sales, little revenue. Could go down to $2.60 by the 19th. Then buy and hopefully the HD8xxx series and Piledriver will push to $8 or more by April and sell it. Buy AMD stock again the following October.
 
If Apple joins the heterogeneous system architecture foundation, then you can be happy for AMD, but I would see this more as Apple being interested in maybe using AMD's GPU technology on an Apple designed CPU built around a 64 bit ARM instruction set!
 
The Bank of Apple could loan AMD enough money from their petty cash account to keep AMD going for a good long while! Why the BOAP could buy sufficient AMD stock stock, while not having to Actually outright
own AMD and deal with any orginal x86 license issues!
 
Seriously? You guys are forgetting something. Trinity Mobile is not that good. The igpu is only about 20% better than the HD 4000. This is a comparison between the best trinity apu (a10-4600m) and a quad core ivy. i5 dual cores will be a little lower perhaps 30% less than trinity while ULV's may be about 50-60% of the a10-4600m (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/6) [this really depends on the cooling of the laptop and how high the graphics can turbo].

However, the macbook air uses a 17 watt chip, what trinity chip uses 17 watts, the a6-4455m which has only two cores running at 2.1 GHZ (2.6 turbo). The igpu of this chip (7500g) has 256 cores running at a maximum of 424 MHz. The a10-4600m has 384 cores running at 686 MHz. The a6-4455m is therefore going to have about half the graphics power of the a10-4600m and about half the cpu power (single threaded should be the same). The a6-4455 is NOT going to be better than the HD 4000 in an i5 ULV CPU. The CPU performance is not going to touch it either (considering that so many ULV cpus are very close to the 35 watt models). (http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Mobile/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Low-Voltage-Review-Making-Slower-Faster/Performance-Competitors-Proc) (http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Core-i53427U-Ultra-Low-Voltage-Ivy-Bridge-For-Ultrabooks/?page=10). The GPU performance of the i5-3427U is slightly better than half of the a10-4600m, so I am guessing that the a6-4455m will have about the same gpu performance (2/3 the cores running at 2/3 the frequency~=45% of the a1--4600m). Considering the i5-3427U pretty much dominates the a10-4600m in cpu tasks, the a6-4455 will be completely obliterated.

Sure AMD may offer a better price/performance ratio, but we are talking about macs here. They have pretty much the worst price/performance ratio of all computers out there. Apple's margins are huge, the only reason they would switch to AMD is to make more money. Furthermore, macs are a premium product, you can't exactly put a budget cpu in a $1200 macbook pro. intel rules the performance camp right now and sales of macs would drop if they put an AMD processor in their computers (Plus they wouldn't be able to boast "2x the power!" and would have to say half the speed).

For the 15 inch macbook pro an a10-4600m + 7670m is about equal to a gt 650m in gpu power (according to 3d mark 11). However, because of driver issues, frame rates in some games are much lower than one would expect. an i7 quad and a gt 650m will beat or tie the a10 in gpu power and kill it in cpu power.

More i5 ULV vs a10-4600m benchmarks (http://techreport.com/review/23016/intel-ultrabook-bound-core-i5-3427u-processor/4)

Remember: On the desktop, AMD igpu is king, but on mobile, intel rules (especially for low power).
 
Now that Apple's solitary hold over Thunderbolt has ended, and Intel is letting others join in on the fun, Apple throws a tantrum.
 
it's a simple question of power efficiency vs cost. AMD apus can provide enough power and integrated graphics all with one cooler which keeps cost down.
 
Sure it's AMD and not ARM? It doesn't make much sense for Apple to switch to AMD right now unless they're going to significantly invest in the company. AMD would need to improve its products or collaborate with Apple on a whole new generation of processors. I find it more likely that Apple could switch its traditional desktop and laptop computers over to ARM chips. There has been such runaway success in the mobile space and such quick advancement of ARM CPU technology that it would be foolish not to consider it an alternative to the Intel ecosystem. There is already demand to put ARM chips in servers and workstations. I don't see putting them in future desktops and laptops to be much of a stretch.
 
[citation][nom]someoneelse[/nom]it's a simple question of power efficiency vs cost. AMD apus can provide enough power and integrated graphics all with one cooler which keeps cost down.[/citation]

AMD has much better graphics right now than INtel. ATI was king in the graphics department it's the one good move AMD made.

Also, AMD can get die shrink down like Intel does, there chips would be just as good. The biggest issue for AMD is that INtel owns the fabrication process lead in the world, AMD's chip design is fine, it's the larger die size that's the problem, they shrink, they lower the power consumption as well as can increase GHz, and the pile driver , bull dozer architecture can really shine.
 
EnFission, where are there Thunderbolt ports any windows comuters in the stores right now! I can not seem to find any yet! Why would Apple be upset over thunderbolt, Intel will sell apple thunderbolt no matter what, Apple is like Walmart, Intel would loose billions not selling to Apple. For your information, PCIe can and Is tunneled over 10 gigabit ethernet and faster, and I am sure displayport could be also. Thunderbolt is not the only high speed protocol out there, and Intel knows this! Windows Laptop OEMs are being gouged by Intel, and Apples TB hold has been over for how long now! Apple has a huge war chest, just let Intel step over the line with Apple and see! Apple's laptops are not the top performers out there, and they still sale! so if Apple wants to, and AMD's performence is good enough, Apple will go for the profits just like Walmart!
 
[citation][nom]whyso[/nom]Seriously? You guys are forgetting something. Trinity Mobile is not that good. The igpu is only about 20% better than the HD 4000.[/citation]You're forgetting a couple of things yourself. Pricing pits most Trinity models against i3 with HD2500 most of the time. In rare cases where HD4000 is priced within striking distance, it will be going up against an A10 with 384 shaders.

Then, follow your own link only go a couple of pages down...

http://techreport.com/review/23016/intel-ultrabook-bound-core-i5-3427u-processor/6

Notice how the two HD4000s don't perform alike? The ULV HD4000s are significantly slower. On top of this, when you stress the (ULV) GPU and CPU at the same time HD4000 can't hit max turbo clocks, this is pretty well known. So no HD4000 isn't all that wicked, and HD2500 (Trinity's main competition) is junk. Also you get better driver support with Trinity, including performance enhancements. Maybe Intel should license Nvidia designs and integrate them to better compete...
 
[citation][nom]jupiter optimus maximus[/nom]I am expecting that 3rd quarter report will be very poor; massive debt, decreased sales, little revenue. Could go down to $2.60 by the 19th. Then buy and hopefully the HD8xxx series and Piledriver will push to $8 or more by April and sell it. Buy AMD stock again the following October.[/citation]

Although they will release a statement later this month, it's anyone's guess.

AMD has no real debt, but they have very little equity so the debt/equity ratio could be better for them. Major recent changes in company officers has shaken things up and made the stock suffer. A lot of the weathy they have is just on paper like patents they may or may not really be worth anything.

Global Foundries just build massive complex in Malta, New York. If I remember right, they and AMD were pointing fingers at eachother when they couldn't pump out the chips they needed. AMD could turn things around in 2013.
 
If Apple changed chip supplier to AMD this would make a lot of sense. The APU is a one shot
deal in a laptop, and almost all Mac computers are a one shot deal: One CPU and one GPU in an
un-upgradable system. This is what Apple makes.
AMD's APU line is getting faster too.
 
I highly doubt it. With Haswell around the corner offering much less power consumption (a place where AMD is miserable right now) with equal or better performance, it is unlikely Apple makes the switch. Like someone said, Apple wants to get a better deal from Intel. They are pissed at Intel for the Ultrabook and want to hit Intel where it hurts. They also know that Intel is after more Apple profits with the tablet based ATOM processor and soon will be after Apple with a Silvermont based phone platform.

Hey, Apple could always go back to the Power PC. Nah!
 
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]I'm not buying it. AMD can't reliably produce the volume. And their roadmap is pretty nebulous.[/citation]

AMD doesn't manufacture their APUs, so you really have no idea what they can do. They could get TSMC and/or Samsung or some other fab company in on manufacturing APUs.
 
[citation][nom]FurtherMore[/nom]I highly doubt it. With Haswell around the corner offering much less power consumption (a place where AMD is miserable right now) with equal or better performance, it is unlikely Apple makes the switch. Like someone said, Apple wants to get a better deal from Intel. They are pissed at Intel for the Ultrabook and want to hit Intel where it hurts. They also know that Intel is after more Apple profits with the tablet based ATOM processor and soon will be after Apple with a Silvermont based phone platform. Hey, Apple could always go back to the Power PC. Nah![/citation]

Trinity has been shown to be doing very well in power consumption, so I disagree.
 
everyone here is forgetting one main thing.
all cpus currently are fast enough for almost all tasks on a consumer, and non server professional level.

most of what use to be the most demanding tasks you could ask a cpu to do, are being offloaded to the gpu, and with apple useing a precieved worse cpu, it may force the few remaining programs to integrate the gpu.

now when you get to the gpu level, intel cant compete, and nvidia charges insane prices (or they get insane markeups, i dont know which) for their gpus

really, the laptop market is honestly a place where amd could easily dominate if the programs would get with the damn times, as their cpus are fast enough, even the bulldozers could out preform for their price, and even in areas where they lacked power, those can be outsouced to the gpu.

and from anicotal statements, the bulldozer was better at multitasking than the i7 series due to having more of a core than a logical, at may not have been as fast per clock, but definalty had uses.

and with improvements, they will reach the same performance of the current i7, remember bulldozer was the first of amds multithreading solution... did the p4 preform well when it first came out, or did it take till the i7 for people to even consider giving it anothter chance
 
1: I hope Apple switches to AMD CPUs, it would help give AMD more capital to invent in producing chips that compete on the same level as Intel. If not solely AMD, than at least an option between Intel and AMD (don't the macs use Radeon graphics anyways?) I want the next chips from AMD (the AM4 ones) to brign back the Athalon II days where AMD came up from behind with an EPIC chip contender.

2: I pray crapple doesn't BUY AMD... I don't need to elaborate. It would be the start of a virtual CPU monopoly for homebuilders and anyone who doesnt want an apple
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom