Report: Apple Looking to AMD for Future Chips

[psychotek71]

why dosen't apple just buy amd and ati
makes sense

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]Good News ,Apple + AMD + ATI , 3A sounds good ,just like what i like ASUS + AMD + ATI nvidia should make more chipset for AMD plstform too , like the old days of Atlhon64 ,intel just skrew them self and hit the wall[/citation]

It gives Apple another supplier... and no reason to NOT use an AMD cpu in some of their products.

But no... we really don't need nvidia chipsets... they are allowed to make Chipsets for AMD CPUs (unlike intel) as its the only way to get SLI on AMD systems... but most people use single card solutions.

AMD chipsets with AMD CPUs is a better solution... and is an excellent chipset to use.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]It gives Apple another supplier... and no reason to NOT use an AMD cpu in some of their products.But no... we really don't need nvidia chipsets... they are allowed to make Chipsets for AMD CPUs (unlike intel) as its the only way to get SLI on AMD systems... but most people use single card solutions.AMD chipsets with AMD CPUs is a better solution... and is an excellent chipset to use.[/citation]
yes AMD chipsets with AMD CPUs is a better solution... but that give gamer more choice if there is more chipsets on AMD platform , and some gamer love to have nforce unify with their geforce , so more chipset on AMD platform will be winwin solution for both

 

[MenosGrand]

Mmm well, AMD mobile cpus are not very powerful so this could be a disadvantage but energy and cost will be better

 

[Guest]

I do believe I have some amd shares to purchase on my things-to-do list.

 

[Jarmo]

[citation][nom]Exodite1[/nom]I don't think so, NVIDIA gaining a chipset license at this point would be mostly academic. Apple would still be paying for Intel's integrated graphics, those aren't going away.[/citation]

... derailed my train of thought there.

 

[awaken688]

[citation][nom]menosgrand[/nom]Mmm well, AMD mobile cpus are not very powerful so this could be a disadvantage but energy and cost will be better[/citation]

That sounds like right up Apple's alley to me. What Apple pushes for their laptop lines is design and battery life. They don't try to compete in specs because obviously that is a losing battle at their price range. But Apple giving up the "Intel inside" idea would be interesting. Intel just has the name in the computer market. I'd love it for AMD. As was mentioned, this would be the best publicity for AMD ever.

 

[smelly_feet]

I was hoping that this meant Apple was thinking of releasing a version of osx that we could legitimately install on our pc's. 🙁

 

[smelly_feet]

I was hoping that this meant Apple was thinking of releasing an oem version of osx that we could legitimately install on our pc's.

 

[dante01010]

I think the should back to the RIsc processors, something based on Sparc architecture or something else

 

[del35]

If Apple were to embrace AMD I would consider using Apple as I am a fan of AMD. But I would want to see Apple free its hardware more and lower its price to reflect the real value of their hardware. I would further want the freedom to ditch the Apple's operating system in total and run the operating system of my choice. I would also like the option of blocking that slimy Apple logo that I associate with stupid people (I guess I could always put a tape over it, something I did to an iPod I was unfortunate to receive as a gift some years back). Under all these conditions, I would consider Apple. I know I am being irrational here.

 

[kdog73]

Apple should just buy AMD. AMD has a market cap of 7B and Apple has 40B in CASH on hand as of January...seems like an easy choice.

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]If Apple were to embrace AMD I would consider using Apple as I am a fan of AMD. But I would want to see Apple free its hardware more and lower its price to reflect the real value of their hardware. I would further want the freedom to ditch the Apple's operating system in total and run the operating system of my choice. I would also like the option of blocking that slimy Apple logo that I associate with stupid people (I guess I could always put a tape over it, something I did to an iPod I was unfortunate to receive as a gift some years back). Under all these conditions, I would consider Apple. I know I am being irrational here.[/citation]

Seriously? You seriously associate a logo with stupid people? And you actually feel "unfortunate" for having received an iPod and were forced to cover up the Apple logo? You aren't being irrational, you are being a moron.

 

[u-nip]

smart apple

 

[insider3]

[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]I guess its time to buy AMD stock[/citation]

I was thinking the exact same thing lol. Thumbs up

 

[climber]

Apple, ATI and AMD = A^3 (A cubed).

 

[scryer_360]

Won't happen. Developers rejoiced when 10.6 came out because it dropped PowerPC support, meaning they no longer had to program in PowerPC support for their newest Mac apps. Adding AMD to it will not only take it back up to a 10 gig install (which it was in Leopard), but will mean a collective developer groan.

 

[nukemaster]

Won't happen. Developers rejoiced when 10.6 came out because it dropped PowerPC support, meaning they no longer had to program in PowerPC support for their newest Mac apps. Adding AMD to it will not only take it back up to a 10 gig install (which it was in Leopard), but will mean a collective developer groan.

Are you comparing AMD CPUs to Power PC? For real? AMD CPUs are X86 based(Not RISC), just like the Intel ones currently in use. There is no reprogramming required. People have run AMD hackintoshes without issue. Once Apple added X86 to OSX, AMD chips could then run it.

 

[BulkZerker]

[citation][nom]nicodemus_mm[/nom]"Derp derp derp I core is the pwn in CPU benchamarks"... have a lower build cost while they keep the price the same. As a business tactic it makes sense. The majority of their target won't notice the difference as long as it looks pretty.I like AMD for certain tasks, if I'm spending that kind of cash I want Intel... or Power 7.[/citation]

So, you'd rather be unable to run a vid on youtube at max resolution becuase your limited by the same GPU that is used on the atom processors?

The CPU isn't, and won't be any sort of bottleneck for 90% of the users of Macs or users in general. All kidding asside it's the GPU that Apple is looking at, even if AMD gives them the short stick with something like the Neo they have a "powerful" HD3200 GPU, something you can play games on reasonably well, atch B/R disks on with no slowdowns, or even 3d modeling and not have it look like a slideshow.

Best of all with the Neo platform, Apple could offer a Macbook under $600 shipped! You CAN'T tell me Mac hasn't been wanting to get a handfull of the netbook action. With Intel they had to look into buying an Ion chipset then J-rigging it into their framework, and lets be honest, they couldn't make a thin little netbook (this is mac, it has to be anorexic looking) netbook with the Ion chipset, it just ran too hot.

 

[Guest]

apple always has some psychic abilities (lol) to guess which hardware will be better... mid 90 out of nowhere they develop the kick ass ppc, beating up those 486 down the sink in performance term.. then in '05 to dump ibm for being lazy to improve the ppc, they choose intel against the odds where its pentium4 is a crap compared to an FX. they made the right choice however, in the next year intel's core toppled amd from the performance throne.

did apple see an upcoming dead end with intel (like the previous m68k, ppc g5)?
it'll be interesting 😀

 

[shawn157]

I would actually think a little bit higher of macs if they would go to AMD. Might also make the prices less over priced.\ 😛