Stewardesses is the longest English word typed only with the left hand
|
|
|
Apple scopes out AMD's designs
RUMOURS THAT Apple has been meeting with chip designer AMD have led to fanbois speculating whether the cult of Jobs relationship with Intel might come to an abrupt end.
Apple's move to Intel processors back in 2006 can be regarded as one of Steve Jobs' most shrewd decisions. Finally ditching the hot and slow PowerPC processors not only brought performance rewards but also gained the firm access to Intel's latest hardware, in some cases months before others. However the delay in updating the Macbook Pro with Core i5 and i7 processors was reportedly down to Chipzilla and not Apple.
The thought of Apple dumping Intel and getting into bed with AMD might sound absurd but there exists a kernel of sanity. As The INQUIRER has reported, the cappuccino firm acquired a couple of senior AMD staff and also developed its own graphics switching technology. Implemented in the company's most recent updates to the Macbook Pro line, that technology allowed the firm to bypass reliance on Nvidia's similar Optimus technology and therefore gives it freedom of choice in the GPUs it uses.
Apple has opted for The Green Goblin's 320M and 330M GPUs lately, however by not relying on Nvidia graphics switching technology, next time it could very well choose a design from AMD. We reported that the fruit themed toymaker was burnt by Nvidia in the 'bumpgate' fiasco, so it's not too surprising that Apple might want to jump ship. Like most firms these days, Apple isn't tied to either of the major GPU vendors, offering both ATI and Nvidia cards in its desktop and "pro" computer systems. However discrete graphics isn't where a hook-up with AMD will be most attractive for Apple. It's more likely to be interested in integrated graphics and system-on-chip (SoC) packages.
Using a single chip vendor might allow Apple to negotiate harder on price, features and certain design parameters such as thermal design power. Design and performance advantages aside, like most things in business the decision will boil down to cold hard cash. AMD has fostered the image of being a designer of low cost chips. The problem is Apple's Mac Pro and Macbook Pro owners aren't looking at purchasing bargain basement machines and given that the cappuccino firm is built on image, the association of its premium priced machines with a budget brand might send fanbois packing. For other models in Apple's range, the association could be just the job for a firm that needs to figure out how to increase its bottom line in ways other than just supersizing its existing product lines.
Machines such as the Imac and the Mac Mini are more conducive to having lower cost chips or more appropriately, SoCs, slotted into them. These chips integrate graphics capability in the CPU package and especially in the case of the Mac Mini, might provide a viable future upgrade path for the company. Intel's consumer SoC development has somewhat stagnated with the Atom, and while the that chip does a pretty decent job, punters would not be pleased if their Imac, costing the best part of a grand, were to show up with a chip that is chiefly found in netbooks costing only about £200 or so.
AMD's upcoming Fusion, a general compute chip with an integrated graphics processor, currently seems like the most viable option for Apple if the firm is serious about putting an SoC into one of its 'low-end' machines. Given that Chipzilla's Westmere is a two-chip design and Intel has indefinitely delayed its Larrabee graphics design, there simply aren't many other options available for Apple.
While AMD might covet Steve Jobs' attention the truth is that for Intel, Apple is merely a flogger of boutique machines. If Jobs thinks he can play Intel like Dell did, he'll most likely find that Chipzilla won't be so accommodating. When the tin box maker finally decided to put AMD chips in its PCs AMD was looking a whole lot stronger than it is at the moment.
The fruit themed toymaker can either use its talks with AMD as leverage against Intel or make some changes in parts of its product range. At the time it switched to Intel, Apple was desperate to get away from Motorola's obsolescent PowerPC chip. Given its impressive increase in sales figures, it has far greater bargaining power now and the ability to sit tight until Steve Jobs gets the deal he wants. The comfortable position Apple is in suggests that any change in chip suppliers would probably occur over years, not quarters. Even more unlikely than a sudden switch is the notion that Apple moving to budget chips from AMD would lead it to drop its prices.
Recent history tells us that Jobs isn't shy about bringing in alternate suppliers, regardless of who it might upset. The firm roped in Samsung, bitter rival of its regular screen supplier LG Electronics, to cover a supply gap and meet demand for its oversized Ipod. So don't bank on the idea that Apple won't make a move in order to spare one of its current partner's feelings.
With Apple's acquisition of talent from AMD and implementing its own graphics switching technology it's far more likely that the Green Goblin will be getting the chop, rather than Intel. As for Chipzilla, in the short term, it is highly unlikely that Jobs will draw away from the chipmaker, but he clearly thinks it's about time to flex his muscles, showing that Apple won't be tied to any single hardware component vendor. µ
Share this:
Share
Is Intel's advantage even at the high end enough to actually matter for Apple? I mean isn't productivity the name of the game on a Mac, rather than Futuremark scores. As long as it can run Final Cut Pro and Adobe apps quickly enough, what Mac user is really going to care? Also, given the mobile tech AMD is working on, is it beyond the realm of possibility that iPhone/iPad could all be ported to x86 in the long term for top to bottom consistency with all Apple products? A buyout of ARM isn't going to happen so perhaps going with AMD in the short term makes sense with a potential buy out later. Doesn't sound that far fetched when you think about it.
I think the author is right to look at the possibilities of Fusion. One has only to look at the recent update on the MacBook Pro 13" to see Apple's dilemma.
There's not enough room on the 13" board for discrete graphics and Intel won't give Nvidia, or anyone else a license to integrate with Nehalem via DMI. So, Apple had a choice: stick with Core2 Duo on the 13" while the rest of the line moved to i5/i7 or use Intel's crappy and OpenCL non-compliant integrated graphics. They chose the former.
By using Fusion on the space constrained low-end they can move the CPU line forward while getting better ATI-style graphics core on one die. This reasoning would also apply to any refresh of MacBook or MacBook Air and might also be useful on low-end Minis and iMacs, though these are not space constrained like like the 13" MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air.
Intel is creating problems for Apple in this space by refusing to license DMI and not developing adequate graphics hardware. So, a move to AMD in this space is very plausible. At the very least it could put the screws on Intel to license DMI. However, I can't see Apple ditching Intel on the higher end for AMD as Intel still has significant advantages over AMD in this space. It is also very much like Apple to hedge their bets on suppliers.
These comments are hilarious, so many misinformed people spouting opinion/rumor/myth as fact...
Very good article without the inq usual apple hate/super sarcasm.
Good job.
AppleDAAMIT
Apple + AMD + ATI
With the huge market capitalization that Apple has going for it right now, why not just buy AMD outright? Apple wouldn't have to worry about manufacturing plants anymore because AMD has finalized it's separation from them. They're a separate entity now as Global Foundries though they still hold a 30% stake. And Apple would get all the patents from both AMD and ATI and have great chip design talent. And, their respective headquarters are only a few miles apart. They also both have that rebel small company against the big guy history. Could be a game changer in the industry.
Maybe with AMD/ATI graphics flash would work reliably on macs.
Presuming apple would write the drivers and not AMD, because they make decent graphics hardware but in the software department things look less rosy and I don't think AMD drivers would fit with the apple image.
@yacko
a cool processor = a faster processor. Heat and speed go hand in hand when it comes to processors. Refer to my other comment to understand how clueless you are. A processor never asked anyone to turn on the AC because it was uncomfortable. There is an actual TECHNICAL reason for reducing heat. That reason is efficiency.
@sebasstin
The resale value argument really isn't valid when talking about hardware. You can get higher end hardware from the other companies you mentioned the day that hardware comes out. Example: imacs still use ATI 4XXX series graphics cards
even though it's almost time for 6XXX series cards to come out. The resale value only comes from brand name premium just as the original inflated sales price comes from the same place. Go hardware shopping you can get more efficient hardware for less than what Apple charges for sucky hardware and install top price bracket windows for less than a mac system.(and no I don't like windows to much. I want apple software on hardware of my choice. windows 7 is however pretty good for something that comes from microsoft.)
It's laughable to think that MAC users know anything about hardware so If they did they wouldn't buy a MAC. The whole idea behind MACs is that they are for computer savvy users yet Apple doesn't trust their customers to build their own systems using any hardware. Apple is also nearly an entire generation behind on graphics cards at least in the iMacs I
(i don't follow the rest of their hardware to close right now).
MAC users also don't know anything about the importance of system cooling when it comes to performance. That's why MACs are air tight and use low end fan cooled graphics cards instead of ones with copper heat sinks and heat pipes or liquid cooling.
MAC users won't care one way or the other. It also won't lower prices either. MAC users don't know what hardware costs.
Intel will prevent Apple to do that. It's a no brainer AMD products are rubbish.
I hope you guys realize that PPC and Power architecture chips in general are still the dominant chips out there, in conjunction with ARM.
you just have to know where to look.
Apple didn't leave PPC due to any "real" technical disadvantage on PPC's part, only people without a real understanding of processor technology would say dumb stuff like this. (read Jon Stokes' Inside the Machine) or any real computer science processor textbook.
The main reason Apple left this is as someone stated before OsX is the core of a mac not the underlying architecture, and strategically removing the obstacle of emulation for windows related software ended up making their hardware that much more valuable.
Sorry but silly arguments about price/performance are just retarded also PPC is cheaper then x86 (they sell a hell of a lot more of them-ask the console makers, american cars, etc)
lastly the cost of apple hardware is negligable when you consider that you can run EVERY x86 os on it. (supported not hacked) and that resale value stays put for 2 years longer then dell/hp/acer, not saying anything of DIY systems.
do your research silly boys... a Muscle car will never be a Ferrari.
One previous commentator stated 'and there has never been a PowerPC portable'.
Lies. And wrong.
As for the article, I'd suggest most of this is likely to be related to GFX hardware. The basic fact is that Nvidia today is all at sea, and has been for an age now, and Fermi is a complete disaster, especially in the areas of heat and energy usage, both prime Apple concerns.
In the meantime, AMD/ATI are making constant in roads with decent GFX work and good results in lowering power and heat.
Intels new GFX on CPU stuff is ok for low end. But it is still way behond the current ATI/AMD parts.
Maybe, just maybe Apple might be looking at AMD for not just low power SoCs, maybe they're also looking at the Phenom II chips too for the higher end machines.
I dare say too Apple fans wouldn't give a monkeys what CPU is in there, they made the switch from PPC to x86 (and from 68k to PPC before that), and the iPhone/iPad don't have x86 or PPC chips in em. I think it's more down to a style thing and the OS, heck, I bet if the OS would run on a Z80 they'd be happy.
Rob
"all we ever heard was how much better PPCs were and how they ran programs 3 times faster than Pentiums"
Perfect FUD. The switch was made not for speed, but to obtain cooler chips to use in laptops. IBM-Freescale could not manage that and there has never been a PowerPC portable. Intel had almost the same problem with the Pentium line, heat was becoming an issue. The switch was from PowerPC G5 to Core/Core2Duo, an entirely different situation, not the PPC/Pentium switch you posit.
"Finally ditching the hot and slow PowerPC processors not only brought performance rewards but also"
Ha! Funny how right up until the last second before the switch all we ever heard was how much better PPCs were and how they ran programs 3 times faster than Pentiums.
Fangs for the mammary:
http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a86d657c970b-pi