Apple to Use AMD Fusion CPUs for New Apple TV?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Makes sense for Apple to pursue an AMD solution. Hard to beat the performance to cost ration, as well as AMD's ever increasing power efficiency while maintaining excellent processing performance. Sounds like a win/win/win for Apple/AMD/consumers.

Now, lets just hope Apple doesn't take cool tech and turn it into apple sauce.
 
How would AMD/ATI/Anti-Apple fanboys take this news? Hard to criticize Apple if it running AMD hardware I suppose.

BTW, Apple is the only “computer” company that can sell AMD product without making it a budget choice. Every other company has AMD in sub-$600 PC but as soon as you increased your budget, every offering is Intel.
 
[citation][nom]danimal_the_animal[/nom]1024x768 is CACA![/citation]
Gee, it's only a 7" screen. I think it's more than enough.
 
[citation][nom]SirDevon[/nom]Gee, it's only a 7" screen. I think it's more than enough.[/citation]
Ya, my 7" netbook is 1024x600, so Im pretty sure the ipad is at a reasonable rez.

on a sidenote, Archos 9 > iPad 😉
 
[citation][nom]fazers_on_stun[/nom]Isn't this the third try for Apple TV? Abysmal failure the first 2 times around, dunno if this is gonna make any difference to buyers..[/citation]
That's cos Apple TV isn't as cool as iTV
But good luck trying to steal that name like they did with iPhone...
 
Apple, stop making this crap. You all should have stopped at the ipod and iphone. Better yet, make a working iphone. itv, ipad, everything i useless, and is a terrible waste of money. OR even better, make a decent computer with amd that costs LESS than $1000. Hell, ill even take less than $2000!
 
Apple + AMD kinda makes sense. I think the biggest reason that Apple is moving to AMD is because Intel is being such a dick about licensing its chipset technology to Nvidia. If Nvidia can't make chipsets for the latest Intel processors, than Apple has a split: it can't use Nvidia for lower-end systems that use on-board graphics, and Intel doesn't have a high-end graphics solution, so apple would have to start catering to two different types of systems, something it doesn't like doing.

AMD offers solutions across the board, from Fusion to chipsets with on-board graphics to high-end graphics cards (both consumer and professional). AMD offers the one-stop shopping so popular with Apple.

Not that Intel cares, but this is just another spot where their "keep everything Intel" attitude is hurting, not helping.
 
[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]How would AMD/ATI/Anti-Apple fanboys take this news? [/citation]
The same way Intel fanboys did 6 years ago, they still won't buy Apple, because its still too expensive. Like you said, Apple will be the only company that won't release a "budget" AMD option. After all, they don't know how to make a computer for under $500 that doesn't [strike]provide enought profit margin[/strike]suck."
 
I like AMD and hate Apple so Im a little torn on this. Im Glad AMD has another large customer for its products even i will never use them. The worst thing about this is Apple is going to go AMD which is cheaper then intel but they wont drop the price a dollar. This is just to maximize Apple's profits but since its good for AMD and I wont use the Apple products anyways I dont care what Apple charges.
 
[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]How would AMD/ATI/Anti-Apple fanboys take this news? Hard to criticize Apple if it running AMD hardware I suppose.BTW, Apple is the only “computer” company that can sell AMD product without making it a budget choice. Every other company has AMD in sub-$600 PC but as soon as you increased your budget, every offering is Intel.[/citation]

not really a fanboy, but i'll wear the hat. any realistic criticism of apple (OS features aside) isn't bashing apple's hardware, just apple's hardware at the price point they sell for. i'm happy that AMD is getting some business but don't see myself any more likely to buy an apple product than when they had intel chips in. for something like apple tv, where much performance is going to be reliant on the gpu -- an area where amd obviously outperforms intel.

...which makes me wonder if (value aside) AMD beats intel (integrated or on-die only) at graphics as badly as they get beaten at processing power?

in closing, i think part of the reason AMD machines sell for less is because of public perception (uneducated) and a general view that intel is better; regardless of quantifiable results. i base this on a $430 AMD machine performing very similarly (if not outperforming) a $460 Intel machine of similar hardware.

http://bit.ly/97L1jT
^hp essentials business class computers -- my money's on the amd/nvidia machine!
 
1024x768 not good on a 7 - 9' screen? I just have a bionatural-antialiasing adaptation on my eyes :), but is not backward compatible to higher resolutions. So I need glasses.

Man you just got a new set of eyes?
Regular TV definition is around 720 x 480 and this is what human kind is mostly still seeing on their hi def TV sets.

But sure we can demand higher resolution until it be way better than life itself. We could implant those screens on our brains too to see the way we always wanted. For 2016 a higher def is planned to reach 8000 pix wide. And the next Apple Retina Displays could be, well, Retina Implant Displays...(RID)

So hey, why not?

On the Apple/AMD I hope it will help Apple/AMD/Us to benefit from a wider selection, lighter possibilities and Cheaper prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom