- Jan 30, 2006
- 1,087
- 0
- 19,280
Intel + apple?
- Thread starter crizazykid2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Power Supplies Product SATA Support
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,253
- 50
- 19,370
Can you add a choice in the poll for "dislike both anyway" or something? I don't want to choose any of those!
ltcommander_data
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2004
- 997
- 0
- 18,980
Nothing happened to AMD. That's the point.
The problem that has plagued the PowerPC relationship in recent years has been guaranteed availability and scalability. This has been a problem since the G4 with Motorola and now with the G5 and IBM. (I'm still pissed that Apple didn't release a 1.1GHz PowerPC 750GX Gobi G3 iBook, but thats another story). While Apple's processor needs numerically are not great and AMD could no doubt satisfy it, Intel's manufacturing capabilities provide a piece of mind that would ensure a smooth transition. The last thing Apple wants is to make a huge leap by going x86 and then having it turn into a G4 launch fiasco and having to downclock the products to maintain yields and beg IBM to help Motorola with production. AMD's recent delay of their AM2 platform would have killed Apple.
Performance-wise AMD doesn't have an advantage over Intel in the form-factor profiles that Apple requires. AMD doesn't have a product to compete with Yonah in the notebook market and an X2 produces too much heat to fit into the 1.5" thick case of the iMac. Intel's product line up will just improve as Merom and family comes out. It's not that AMD's processors don't perform, because they do, but the difference just doesn't make up for the stability of going Intel.
Now in a 4-way server environment Apple would have certainly gone AMD, because Intel just can't compete with the Opteron in that situation. But as it is, the G5 towers can easily be replaced by Conroe or Woodcrest and an Opteron just doesn't offer enough advantage in a 1 or 2 way situation.
The problem that has plagued the PowerPC relationship in recent years has been guaranteed availability and scalability. This has been a problem since the G4 with Motorola and now with the G5 and IBM. (I'm still pissed that Apple didn't release a 1.1GHz PowerPC 750GX Gobi G3 iBook, but thats another story). While Apple's processor needs numerically are not great and AMD could no doubt satisfy it, Intel's manufacturing capabilities provide a piece of mind that would ensure a smooth transition. The last thing Apple wants is to make a huge leap by going x86 and then having it turn into a G4 launch fiasco and having to downclock the products to maintain yields and beg IBM to help Motorola with production. AMD's recent delay of their AM2 platform would have killed Apple.
Performance-wise AMD doesn't have an advantage over Intel in the form-factor profiles that Apple requires. AMD doesn't have a product to compete with Yonah in the notebook market and an X2 produces too much heat to fit into the 1.5" thick case of the iMac. Intel's product line up will just improve as Merom and family comes out. It's not that AMD's processors don't perform, because they do, but the difference just doesn't make up for the stability of going Intel.
Now in a 4-way server environment Apple would have certainly gone AMD, because Intel just can't compete with the Opteron in that situation. But as it is, the G5 towers can easily be replaced by Conroe or Woodcrest and an Opteron just doesn't offer enough advantage in a 1 or 2 way situation.
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,253
- 50
- 19,370
Teh_Catman
Distinguished
- Nov 2, 2005
- 175
- 0
- 18,680
Teh_Catman
Distinguished
- Nov 2, 2005
- 175
- 0
- 18,680
If Intel went mobile for all there chips they'd put AMD out of business.
PS. I am an AMD Fanboy.
PS. I am an AMD Fanboy.
Teh_Catman
Distinguished
- Nov 2, 2005
- 175
- 0
- 18,680
Intel makes like what a billion a month? Thats more than enough to throw at the Mobile division and Advertising (which they do too much already). Also they can fire everyone responsible for the Press"Hot".
ltcommander_data
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2004
- 997
- 0
- 18,980
I thought Intel was going mobile by going with the Merom family. Whether that will put AMD out of business is another debate.
rettihSlluB
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2005
- 296
- 0
- 18,780
Sorry It_Commander, but this is bullshit.
AMD has Fab36, IBM fab capacity and chartered to keep supply more than stable if Apple or Dell ever needs it and you should have known this.
AMD has plans to build another fab in 2009 (I believe this one would be a 450mm fab since 300mm doesn't makes any sense for future-proofing).
And why??
If AMD wanted they could release socket AM2 earlier, but as I said in my other thread, why bother doing so if current processors can give Intel a run for their money??
Did you know that dual core Turions can be released at 2.66GHz and only consume 25-30W?
If an X2-3800 beats Yonah in almost all tests, now imagine a dual core Turion64 at 2.66GHz that only consumes 25W. That would be a sweet processor to have (Don't forget 64 bit computing on the go).
Please, I'm dying to see those benchmarks. :roll:
ltcommander_data
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2004
- 997
- 0
- 18,980
Like I said in my original post, AMD would know doubt be able to supply enough chips to Apple since its needs aren't that high. But we are talking about stability or perceive stability for an Apple base that has repeatedly not had it. To that effect news like this isn't reassuring for customers:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060126222840.html
AMD claims that the problem is lack of packaging materials which although it may be true, sounds kind of funny. Lack of packaging materials will effect Apple even if they don't buy retail box, because even trays need packaging. The article saids OEMs get priority, but like I said it doesn't bode well for perceived stability and marketing purposes.
Personally, the use of "because they can" as the reason for the AM2 delay doesn't seem reasonable. The problem with the reason is the fact that the AM2 delay puts its launch right on top of the Merom family launch. Even if we assume that AM2 will still maintain the performance lead over Intel, we can generally agree that the performance lead won't be as great as it currently is with the P4. AMD's power and heat lead will be similarly reduced or eliminated. This would mean that AMD will have to out market Intel. Now Intel may be a poor chip designed, but they certainly are a good marketer either due to good strategy, which can be debated, or by sheer amounts of money that they can throw out. Why would AMD put themselves in a position where they have to try to fight for the same TV time or newspaper space?
Marketing isn't the only issue. Intel can also outprice AMD if need be. AM2 will still be using the 90nm process while Intel will be using 65nm. Merom is also the 2nd generation on the 65nm and by Q3 the yields would have improved enough to surpass Intel's current 90nm process. It isn't just the processor either. By Q3, Intel will be double transitioning their chipsets from 130nm to 90nm and from 200mm wafers to 300mm wafers. The wafer transition alone increases die production by 240% and reduces energy costs by 40%. AMD may have better performance, but if Intel cuts their prices and the chipsets can easily sustain a 50% cut, AMD will have a hard time competing.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20051124214142.html
It would make much more sense for AMD to launch as originally planned in April. That way they can do it on their own terms and market at will. Even if they don't have the initial volumes at launch, but the time Intel launches a few months later AM2 would have been mature, the market would have accepted it, and the prices would have dropped and stabilized. AMD could then easily evaluated Merom's performance and release faster processors as needed on their already proven platform.
If there was a technical glitch or other hard reason to postpon the AM2 launch then of course AMD was justified. However, the "they did it because they can" argument just doesn't fly with me. AMD has the advantage right now. Why would they sit around, if they have the product ready, when they can just as easily lead the market?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060126222840.html
AMD claims that the problem is lack of packaging materials which although it may be true, sounds kind of funny. Lack of packaging materials will effect Apple even if they don't buy retail box, because even trays need packaging. The article saids OEMs get priority, but like I said it doesn't bode well for perceived stability and marketing purposes.
Personally, the use of "because they can" as the reason for the AM2 delay doesn't seem reasonable. The problem with the reason is the fact that the AM2 delay puts its launch right on top of the Merom family launch. Even if we assume that AM2 will still maintain the performance lead over Intel, we can generally agree that the performance lead won't be as great as it currently is with the P4. AMD's power and heat lead will be similarly reduced or eliminated. This would mean that AMD will have to out market Intel. Now Intel may be a poor chip designed, but they certainly are a good marketer either due to good strategy, which can be debated, or by sheer amounts of money that they can throw out. Why would AMD put themselves in a position where they have to try to fight for the same TV time or newspaper space?
Marketing isn't the only issue. Intel can also outprice AMD if need be. AM2 will still be using the 90nm process while Intel will be using 65nm. Merom is also the 2nd generation on the 65nm and by Q3 the yields would have improved enough to surpass Intel's current 90nm process. It isn't just the processor either. By Q3, Intel will be double transitioning their chipsets from 130nm to 90nm and from 200mm wafers to 300mm wafers. The wafer transition alone increases die production by 240% and reduces energy costs by 40%. AMD may have better performance, but if Intel cuts their prices and the chipsets can easily sustain a 50% cut, AMD will have a hard time competing.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20051124214142.html
It would make much more sense for AMD to launch as originally planned in April. That way they can do it on their own terms and market at will. Even if they don't have the initial volumes at launch, but the time Intel launches a few months later AM2 would have been mature, the market would have accepted it, and the prices would have dropped and stabilized. AMD could then easily evaluated Merom's performance and release faster processors as needed on their already proven platform.
If there was a technical glitch or other hard reason to postpon the AM2 launch then of course AMD was justified. However, the "they did it because they can" argument just doesn't fly with me. AMD has the advantage right now. Why would they sit around, if they have the product ready, when they can just as easily lead the market?
That's very nice and all, but could AMD have provided it to Apple sufficiently ahead of time last year so they could have launched in January instead of Yonah? The dual core Turion requires the new Socket S1, which we've heard the least of compared to AM2 or Socket 1207.
In this case I was refering to Conroe vs. AM2 or Woodcrest vs. Opteron. The G5 tower won't be replaced until those roll out so I wasn't referring to the current Xeons which we know will lose. I've posted Dempsey scores before that compare nicely to the Opteron 280 so the Opteron isn't invincible.
cdpage
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2001
- 789
- 0
- 18,990
I too thought it rather strange that they desided Intel, AMD is ahead of the game in the 64Bit area, and that what apple has been touting for a while now. but perhaps that where the problem lies.
Its been toooo long since i followed this...
If im not mistaken G5's are 64bit and 100% backword 32bit.
AMDs 64 chips are not the same. (obviously... x86) and how backword compatable they are may have played a roll in switching to the x86.
perhaps OSX does/could have worked on and AMD 64... but not the 32bit Apps. or visa versa
I guess the the point im trying to make, is that it might be possible that AMDs 64bit->32bit road maps don't work with Apples OSX and all the apps that just trasitioned...
Reworking those road maps simply might not be worth it, for AMD or apple and apples partners... not for now.
In a couple years, perhaps...but not right now, Apple needed a solution and not just for themselfs.
Its been toooo long since i followed this...
If im not mistaken G5's are 64bit and 100% backword 32bit.
AMDs 64 chips are not the same. (obviously... x86) and how backword compatable they are may have played a roll in switching to the x86.
perhaps OSX does/could have worked on and AMD 64... but not the 32bit Apps. or visa versa
I guess the the point im trying to make, is that it might be possible that AMDs 64bit->32bit road maps don't work with Apples OSX and all the apps that just trasitioned...
Reworking those road maps simply might not be worth it, for AMD or apple and apples partners... not for now.
In a couple years, perhaps...but not right now, Apple needed a solution and not just for themselfs.
DuxSyagrius
Distinguished
- Dec 22, 2005
- 205
- 0
- 18,680
You cant bullshit a bullshitter.... I will try.....
I dont think the Turion is a good fit for Apple. It is last Gen technology. I think the biggest strike against it is the fact it doesnt use dual channel tech. I dont think that fits too well with Apple always wanting to be at the cutting edge of things. Also, S754 chips are about 200mhz behind venice/venus core chips. So a 2ghz Turion is equal to a A64 3000. So if a 2ghz core duo comes in at or just below the X2 3800, it will undoubtably be faster than the Turion.
Specs aside, Apple wants the best right now, not in 6 months of so. Not since the P3 days has apple had the best chip. Now apple has the best MOBILE chip on the market and that is what apple needs. Apple mostly sells notebooks and stuff. They are doing the right thing. When it comes to desktops though, it could have went with AMD but I bet intel simply made them a deal they couldnt refuse. I would wager a shiny nickle that Apple is getting these chips cheaper than even Dell.
You know how Appe is. They rely on a fast upgrade path. they need those Mac fanboys buying a new notebook every year and stuff. the current core duo is a stop gap measure at best and we will see new Core duos in the near future. Apple will be able to announce a new upgraded model every 4-6 months and keep the rubes buying.
For right now, this was the right thing to do. With AMD owning the desktop arena (performance, not volume) and with them making huge strides in the server market, it is only logical that AMD will try to leapfrog the core duo next year. But one year is too long for apple to wait. They are seeing declining sales on just about everything except the Ipod and they need an enema.....
Lets see what happens in 2007. Since notebooks are the future, I think AMD has to create a compelling product soon to keep growth up. I think they will. but does anyone here think Steve jobs will jump ship from intel to AMD so soon? Especially after he has been touting the merits of the core duo? I think not. Dell first, then apple, Thats what I would do if I were AMD.
I dont think the Turion is a good fit for Apple. It is last Gen technology. I think the biggest strike against it is the fact it doesnt use dual channel tech. I dont think that fits too well with Apple always wanting to be at the cutting edge of things. Also, S754 chips are about 200mhz behind venice/venus core chips. So a 2ghz Turion is equal to a A64 3000. So if a 2ghz core duo comes in at or just below the X2 3800, it will undoubtably be faster than the Turion.
Specs aside, Apple wants the best right now, not in 6 months of so. Not since the P3 days has apple had the best chip. Now apple has the best MOBILE chip on the market and that is what apple needs. Apple mostly sells notebooks and stuff. They are doing the right thing. When it comes to desktops though, it could have went with AMD but I bet intel simply made them a deal they couldnt refuse. I would wager a shiny nickle that Apple is getting these chips cheaper than even Dell.
You know how Appe is. They rely on a fast upgrade path. they need those Mac fanboys buying a new notebook every year and stuff. the current core duo is a stop gap measure at best and we will see new Core duos in the near future. Apple will be able to announce a new upgraded model every 4-6 months and keep the rubes buying.
For right now, this was the right thing to do. With AMD owning the desktop arena (performance, not volume) and with them making huge strides in the server market, it is only logical that AMD will try to leapfrog the core duo next year. But one year is too long for apple to wait. They are seeing declining sales on just about everything except the Ipod and they need an enema.....
Lets see what happens in 2007. Since notebooks are the future, I think AMD has to create a compelling product soon to keep growth up. I think they will. but does anyone here think Steve jobs will jump ship from intel to AMD so soon? Especially after he has been touting the merits of the core duo? I think not. Dell first, then apple, Thats what I would do if I were AMD.
INeedCache
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 521
- 0
- 18,980
I just love that commercial about the "freeing" of Intel chips from the boring PC boxes into the Mac. It implies one can do mystical, magical things with a Mac that one could never dream of in a PC. I don't own a Mac, but I've worked on enough. But after seeing this commercial, it leaves me wondering what I've missed, as I could be doing soooooo much more if I had one, especially a new one with an Intel chip. I feel lost and cheated.
rettihSlluB
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2005
- 296
- 0
- 18,780
That was nice from you. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Why do you think that?
If you're referring to current Turions, then, it makes sense; but if you're referring to the new dual core Turions, then you're really wrong with your statement.
Accroding to this article, there will be single and dual channel Turions.
I guess you didn't bulshit the bullshitter. 😀
slvr_phoenix
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 6,157
- 1
- 25,780
Alrighty then folks, here's my pair of coppery goodness.
Yeah yeah, perceptions about production reliability and availability probably had a lot to do with it. Are AMD's chips good enough? Sure. (Though there seems to still be some questions about power usage for mobiles.) But is AMD's reputation good enough for a company as sick as Apple is of CPU manufacturing problems? So I back up ltcommander_data's surprisingly well thought out and succinct post on that count.
But that's not all. I think there are two other very important aspects missing from the decision.
1) Intel's marketing reimbursement:
Let's face it, Apple isn't making money on their computers anymore. If it weren't for things like the iPod, they'd be totally up a creek without a paddle right now. Intel does most of it's marketing by paying OEMs to market Intel Inside. OEMs appreciate that revenue. I'm sure that Apple, with their poor computer profitability, greatly appreciates that revenue.
2) Intel's software engineering skills:
One of the most important things to making Mac work on an Intel chip is emulation. No one is going to buy a Macintel if their software doesn't work. AMD just doesn't have great resources or much of an impressive track record when it comes to the software side of things. Where as Intel has got one of the best records when it comes to how many resources they put into the software engineering.
So when Apple decided to switch to an x86 proc, and so very badly need a good emulation layer for that switch to be as seamless as possible to their customers (and thus make the switch actually work instead of crash and burn), they turned towards Intel's excellent experience over AMD's rather pathetic offering in that respect.
So when you take all three of these factors into account, AMD didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell compared to Intel. AMD might have an awesome desktop and workstation/server chip right now, and they're even doing things to improve their production, but when you look at the whole package instead of just these two facets of the decision, no one in their right mind would have chosen AMD over Intel. It just would have been too much of a risk for such a major endeavor.
Yeah yeah, perceptions about production reliability and availability probably had a lot to do with it. Are AMD's chips good enough? Sure. (Though there seems to still be some questions about power usage for mobiles.) But is AMD's reputation good enough for a company as sick as Apple is of CPU manufacturing problems? So I back up ltcommander_data's surprisingly well thought out and succinct post on that count.
But that's not all. I think there are two other very important aspects missing from the decision.
1) Intel's marketing reimbursement:
Let's face it, Apple isn't making money on their computers anymore. If it weren't for things like the iPod, they'd be totally up a creek without a paddle right now. Intel does most of it's marketing by paying OEMs to market Intel Inside. OEMs appreciate that revenue. I'm sure that Apple, with their poor computer profitability, greatly appreciates that revenue.
2) Intel's software engineering skills:
One of the most important things to making Mac work on an Intel chip is emulation. No one is going to buy a Macintel if their software doesn't work. AMD just doesn't have great resources or much of an impressive track record when it comes to the software side of things. Where as Intel has got one of the best records when it comes to how many resources they put into the software engineering.
So when Apple decided to switch to an x86 proc, and so very badly need a good emulation layer for that switch to be as seamless as possible to their customers (and thus make the switch actually work instead of crash and burn), they turned towards Intel's excellent experience over AMD's rather pathetic offering in that respect.
So when you take all three of these factors into account, AMD didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell compared to Intel. AMD might have an awesome desktop and workstation/server chip right now, and they're even doing things to improve their production, but when you look at the whole package instead of just these two facets of the decision, no one in their right mind would have chosen AMD over Intel. It just would have been too much of a risk for such a major endeavor.
DuxSyagrius
Distinguished
- Dec 22, 2005
- 205
- 0
- 18,680
Right. I am refering to current Turions ONLY! I know that future Turions will be quite nice. But that wasnt the point I was trying to make. Current tech doesnt cut it against the Core duo and Apple cant wait for this new Turion. Think about it like this. Apple's only competitor in the notebook segement is the centrino platform. Apple has a better looking notebook. On this no one can argue. Now that they have the latest tech available on the market the will most assuredly win market share. You want to know something else? Core duo is a stop gap measure. There will be a better produc ton the market by year's end. You want to know something else? I bet apple gets first dibs on it too. I also think that is why Dell is making all these rumblings about possible use of AMD chips. I think you had what I was saying a little confused. I was trying to point out the Apple needs the core duo NOW. I am very excited about the new turions. I bet apple is too. The is always an opportunity for them to use them. But it will be in the FUTURE. We are talking about the here and now my friend. But if you want, why dont you start another thread detailing future AMD chips and the possibility of Apple using them. I think that would be a more appropriate forum for your points cuz they are very good. Can a bullshit or what?
DuxSyagrius
Distinguished
- Dec 22, 2005
- 205
- 0
- 18,680
I agree. I think apple and intel simply know more than we do and probobly always will. I used to frequent the PC vs Mac forums and I must say, mac users simply hate intel. I think mac users are really anti-establishment and revel in being the underdog. I figured from that point of view, AMD would have been a better fit. I know that AMD could manufacture enough chips. Its not like apple sells a million power books a month or something. Steve jobs is only a partial idiot and I think he picked intel for a reason. But the repercussions of this are going to be epic: Apple can now compare apples to apples. Since apple cant diss on the CPU when comparing its machines to a PC, what are they going to diss on? Probobly the OS. Most likely design. Here we go!
ltcommander_data
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2004
- 997
- 0
- 18,980
You need to be careful with that article.
What's funny is that Socket S1 has significantly less pins than S754, yet they are choosing it to add all these new features including dual core support, DDR2 support, dual channel support, more power for higher clock speeds, etc. If they had stuck with S754, they would have probably had enough pins, but of course there was probably many hardware based incompatibilities that couldn't be resolved.
I'm not saying that AMD won't release dual channel support, because eventually they will, but if it really requires a new socket, we have heard nothing about it.
I read that article when it was released and I always felt that paragraph was the most important. The fact is that S1 can't support DDR2 and dual channel mode so AMD will have to choose. Since DDR2 is what they are promoting now, they will have to postpone dual channel support.
What's funny is that Socket S1 has significantly less pins than S754, yet they are choosing it to add all these new features including dual core support, DDR2 support, dual channel support, more power for higher clock speeds, etc. If they had stuck with S754, they would have probably had enough pins, but of course there was probably many hardware based incompatibilities that couldn't be resolved.
I'm not saying that AMD won't release dual channel support, because eventually they will, but if it really requires a new socket, we have heard nothing about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram