Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Sep 2006 20:48 UTC
AMD AMD chief executive Hector Ruiz said Wednesday that Apple will eventually use its microprocessors alongside those from Intel. Ruiz made the comments during a dinner speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, according to Bloomberg. "Everybody wants choice," he said, adding that rival Intel's practices have stifled the PC industry's growth. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"
Order by: Score:
True:
by deb2006 on Thu 21st Sep 2006 22:25 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

Why should Apple do such athing? But wait: Did Intel pay for it?

Reply Score: 2

Choice?
by robojerk on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:10 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

Apple is not about choice but experience. Unless AMD can offer a deal to save apple some big dough or if Intel screws something up choice is not in the vocab at apple.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Choice?
by zombie process on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:48 UTC in reply to "Choice?"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Spot on. Though opterons are damn sweet...

Reply Score: 1

Yes, Apple's eager...
by snozzberry on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:55 UTC
snozzberry
Member since:
2005-11-14

...to join forces once again with the CEO who repeatedly screwed it on Motorola chip deliveries.

My guess is that AMD's lobbing not-so-subtle threats at Apple as far as ATI video card pricing is concerned; before The Switch Mac Minis had ATI video onboard, and now they've lost that market to Intel integrated graphics.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yes, Apple's eager...
by bousozoku on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 00:58 UTC in reply to "Yes, Apple's eager..."
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

He's not really saying anything concrete, just creating hype.

As has been noted elsewhere. He was in charge when Steve Jobs returned to Apple and canceled the clone programme, leaving Motorola and others with large quantities of systems.

I'm not sure who had it worse.

In any case, Steve Jobs' long lasting friendship with Andy Grove had a lot to do with Apple's using Intel's chipsets, as much as the technology itself. He did give PowerPC a fair shake, though.

If AMD has a chance, it'll have to be more than just hype.

Reply Score: 2

AMD
by sp29 on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 00:03 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

It seems Apple has secret plans aways on the burner, and not just the back burner. Apple has made a great switch for now and it come make another one later.

Reply Score: 2

Sure!
by DevL on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 01:23 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

As soon as whatever 5-year deal Apple signed with intel expires, Applle MIGHT take a look at AMD. Until then, don't even dream about it.

Reply Score: 1

xD
by SK8T on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 04:15 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

why do they think apple would do that? xD

Reply Score: 1

On what grounds?
by Jody on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 05:51 UTC
Jody
Member since:
2005-06-30

I believe Intel's per processor manufacturing costs are lower than AMD's, and I am sure the pricing Apple gets is completive, likely even cheaper than what AMD would offer.

Currently Core 2 looks like it is going to be a strong contender for a while in performance and price and Intel's mobile line has always been strong.

Apple other product is their Xserv server and computing clusters, 2 more areas where Intel holds a dominant position.

I also wouldn't be shocked if Intel played an important role in helping Apple design an X86 compiler and motherboards.

I think in shifting away from PowerPC, Apple was looking to move into something more mainstream to keep up without skyrocketing R&D costs.

The cost of additional R&D and testing associated with including AMD processors as well as a reduction in their volume discounts with Intel means (at least in the short term) bundling AMD is not worth it.

Maybe AMD has some kind of long term plan cooking, but who doesn't? What if ATI tanks after they throw away the ATI name and put it under new management?

If AMD's processors become such a powerful product that Apple will have no other choice, then what difference will it make if Apple is buying or not since they would have the rest of the industry at their door step anyway?

I think CEO's generate hype like this once in a while because they are good for short term gains in the stock price.

Edited 2006-09-22 06:07

Reply Score: 2

RE:AMD:Apple Will Eventually Use Our Chips
by TusharG on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 06:03 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have already seen people using AMD 64 Bit Pc with MAC OS!
Its ok if Apple doesnt move to AMD... there are people who have more powserfull machines from AMD than apple is selling and at half the price apple is selling at ;)
Who cares if apple moves to AMD or not!

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

More powerful at half the price? Where do you live where AMD is that much better and cheaper?

Reply Score: 1

TusharG Member since:
2005-07-06

Well... 2.2 GHz AMD 64 bit processor 1 GB RAM, 100 GB HDD, 17" Screen, Double layer DVD RW+- , lightscribe, memory card readers. 4 USB, 1 Firewire port! Notebook for just $1000 and with same config buy a apple mac notebook for $2700 !!!!!!!!!!!

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

I'm not sure where you found that config at that price (didn't see anything matching on Pricerunner), but you should do a side by side comparison of the two and also take into account OS cost, weight, etc. of the two.

Who cares if you can find a laptop at that performance/price if it weighs 6-7 kg? As an example.

Reply Score: 1

justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

I've not found a 6-7 kgs notebook yet, but I agree that Apple stuff is always more expensive. If you live in a country where VAT is 20% an Apple PC turns out to be a mere status symbol. I personally don't see any reason to buy one when you can build your own system for less, unless you really want to splash out big bucks and show it off. As for notebooks, well, why should anyone buy a tiny-screened MacBook? Would a Turion chip make it more palatable, cost-effective or performant? I don't think so. They've proved they might do so for sure, but heaven knows why and when they're going to transition again. At the moment there's no point in going for AMD: what would be the strategy behind it at all? If they should see an environment friendly PC could bring more money they'd even be using Via C7-D processors...

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

VAT is added for Mac's and PC's both, and if we're gonna talk stationary (not laptop), then Apple does have really good prices on their offerings when compared to other pre-built options.

Most comparisons of cost between pre-built and custom-built seems to not take into account the time spent on each before you can start using them. If you assign a cost to each hour spent, don't be surprised if the custom-built end up more "expensive" for equal performance and capacity.

Reply Score: 1

Which one to choose
by hraq on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 06:07 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Lately I was able to configure 2 systems, one with Core2 Duo E6400 ( @2.13Ghz) and one with AMD X2 Athlon 4200+ socket 939.

I used intel board X975XBX for intel CPU and Used Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe for AMD. and then I used the lowest power consumption of both from the BIOS and Control Panel/Power Options. and watched for heat generated by means of IR/Laser Thermometer.

I got AMD CPU to be cooler when idle than intel one, then I was chocked to find this by experience, then I knew why was that. Actually the speed step of intel CPU makes CPU clock down from 2.13 to 1.8GHz while AMD CPU from 2.2GHz to 1.0GHz!! which resulted in 34 degrees celcius AMD CPU while @full power it was not more than 45 degrees. For Intel when Idle Temp was 38 and when working fully was 43 degrees.
But as we all know, CPU average load during the day will be just 1-5% like in my file server and my windows desktop and fedora desktop. So, I concluded that if you are not gonna use the system you build for gamming It would be wise to buy AMD solutions rather than Intel, because in gamming average load is always above 50%.

I used AMD and Intel Boxed Heat Sinks/Fans. and checked temperatures by both Mobo/CPU sensors and laser guided InfraRed thermometer, just for confirmation.
By the way Intel chipsets were unbelievably hotter than AMD one both North bridges and South Bridges (52 vs 32)

I have noticed that Fedora also stepped intel and AMD CPU speeds like windows and thus I achieved these values for these two OSs.

AMD board was using nvidia nforce 4 SLI chipet.

So, maybe Apple might consider AMD without any fear of heat problems.
Lately, I have checked Apple laptops on the show at Fry's Elecetronics, and found the white/black 13" laptops bottom boiling (@ 10 o'clock position).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Which one to choose
by netpython on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 06:58 UTC in reply to "Which one to choose"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Desktops have rarely heat problems these days.Laptops are a different story though.What's needed is defenitely a breakthrough.Perhaps a peltier element that absorbs heat from CPU and streams back a percentage of electrical current to the battery.

Edited 2006-09-22 06:59

Reply Score: 1

This (prolly) won't happen
by Nezumi on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 12:28 UTC
Nezumi
Member since:
2006-04-02

Famous last words I know but...

Intel supply CPU's, chipsets, network logic (wired + wireless) and motherboard design expertise. Essentially Intel are a one stop shop for Apple.

On the other hand Intel has just sold their networking division (to Marvell I think)...

I read that Intel are *very* competitive with pricing. I also read a _rumour_ that this caused Dell to properly look at AMD as a CPU supplier.

Intel are dominant in the laptop space, due to the Centrino branding and associated technology. AMD don't have a complete package like this. This goes back to the one stop shop.

IMHO, this is wishful thinking. AMD had a lead for a *long* time with regards to CPU and are still competitive (but not leading). Why would Apple change?

Reply Score: 1

why?
by RMSe17 on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 12:54 UTC
RMSe17
Member since:
2006-03-06

"Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"

Because nothing AMD has can take on Core 2 architecture?

If AMD comes out with something better, might be a different story. At the same time, Intel is the only company who already has ability to do 45nm and 32nm to follow. Soo... AMD got their work cut out for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: why?
by l3v1 on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 17:23 UTC in reply to "why?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Because nothing AMD has can take on Core 2 architecture?

Yet.

When Opterons and Amd64 came out it was Intel who was in this situation. I don't think Amd is doing worse (hell, check architecture, consumption, thermals, performance charts) now than Intel was back then, given the situation.

Time will tell.

Reply Score: 1

Speed
by siki_miki on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 15:35 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Apple probably knew that Core2 will be fastewr than A64's so they chose it. Intel managers were probably better salesmen in this case than AMD's. And for spoiled Mac users Intel is probably a word they want to see sticked on their box (or elsewhere).

Reply Score: 1

AMD in Macs
by cutterjohn on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 16:03 UTC
cutterjohn
Member since:
2006-01-28

It might be possible for servers IF TDP is low enough, and pricing per chip is low enough to warrant Opteron use v. server version of Core 2 Duo (or quads of either when available). Of course it IS possible that some customers may be willing to take an initial price hit and somewhat lower performance for the small power savings in LARGE installations, although I don't think that there are or ever will be too many large Xserve installations as there are equivalent and much cheaper alternatives. GUI's are pretty worthless on servers...

I can't really see it on the desktop though, as the power difference is not nearly enough to justify the pricing and performance gaps.

Then we could also go onto AMD's mfg cap, as I believe they have even lower cap than IBM does.

I like AMD and would use them again if they could at least match Intel performance and pricing, but right now, they aren't even on my list any longer except for my older socket 939 mbs which is already covered/maxxed.

Oh well, good luck to AMD, but I won't be seeing a new AMD product again until they can produce something at least equivalent to Intel's current arch and at a comparable price.

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMD in Macs
by l3v1 on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 17:26 UTC in reply to "AMD in Macs"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

except for my older socket 939 mbs

Could you guess how many people didn't even switch to s939 yet ? Let alone something newer. Thinking home use/price/performance/power consumption/thermals you really can't write down Amd yet.

Reply Score: 1

Why ?
by flywheel on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 01:18 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

Apple chose Intel because "Intel" is brand that is very easy to sell - in despite of massive Intel screwups. Also Intel is able to deliver almost everything within the box, making it somewhat a controlled environment. That also has an effect on the price.

In short Intel is a much better package deal than any other, and I haven't even mentioned Core yet.

Reply Score: 1