What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
45 Comments
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The only reason Apple didn't go with AMD's CPUs during the transition was the fact that their portable chips used more power than Intel's. Steve Jobs stressed performance per watt and went with Intel for the low power chips.
- TomKarpik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25... And because AMD doesn't have a complete platform solution, unlike Intel. Where are AMD's chipsets? Or the new firmware system slated to replace BIOS?
Intel's got them beat, and I'd be damned if Apple decided to go nForce/AMD. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@SgtDooley
You seem to not know what the word attract means. - ibolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Intel has more than enough money to hold Apple close, and this way they get to ride along with Apple's media attention.
- adstretch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14No matter what Steve said at the keynotes, the MAIN point of picking Intel chips over any other semiconducter is their manufacturing capabilities. They can simply churn out more processors than anyone else.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I can't believe I even read that story. Stupid Enquirer.
In other notes:
The first graphics accelerator card Apple released, the 8*24GC, used an AMD 29000 processor.
Many of the the last group of Apple-designed LaserWriters (like the 16/600PS I have) used the AMD29030 (last chip in the 29K family).
Some of the the PC-compatibility cards for the late PowerPCs used AMD AM586-100s on them (others used Intel chips). Later ones even used Cyrix chips!
Apple used a lot of AMD NOR (boot) flash memory in their computers over the years. AMD sold this division off as Spansion though. - tofagerl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes... But at that time they didn't have this torrid affair with Intel :)
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Merge is the correct term but the merger is top heavy with AMD being about 20 times the size of ATI.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Why then did they dump the PPC line just as it was getting interesting with the upcoming Cell processor. If Apple really did want superior parts then they would have gone Cell or UltraSPARC, as it stands they're on the budget line with x86. Production was more important than quality so they went with bulk order commodity hardware. I mean no one really believes that any x86 is high quality surely. They've worked wonders with them to be fair but the platform is archaic.
However AMD has long produced better processors than Intel. Intels current 64 bit line is a straight copy of AMD's almost. Intel has one small advantage being lower power consumption for notebooks which happen to be an important line for Apple. If Apple didn't sell many notebooks then AMD would have been the better choice.
Theres a reason most gamers tend to prefer AMD chips to Intel chips. They give you more bang for your buck. Intel survive mostly on marketing and brand recognition. - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The G3 (PPC 7xx, a completely new design) and G4 (PPC 74xx, the PPC 7xx with AltiVec extensions, as well as fixing other shortcomings like lack of SMP) were Motorola (now Freescale) chips (although because Motorola wasn't able to make enough G4s (due to low yields), Apple got IBM to help improve the yields, and to manufacture some). The G5 (PPC 970, derivative of the POWER 4) was made by IBM.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6they went with intel because the intel core duo chips offer more processing power and use less power, and i believe they're smaller in size too,
as far as notebooks go intel cpu's are the best
amd is still best for desktops though imo - goat77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7For desktop/server I can completely see apples using 4x4 or K8L, though.
- CypherXero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I didn't know "fuse" was a legal term.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Where are AMD's chipsets?"
ATi has them, and AMD are taking over ATi. - MetaDFF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@TomKarpik
You have a good point that AMD today doesn't have a full platform solution today.
With AMD recently acquiring ATI, they will soon have that gap filled.
That was one of the major motivations for AMD buying out ATI. - triplep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Ratteler
Why did they move away from IBM? It was the inability to produce a G5 notebook, for well over a year. You can't just have a flagship chip 2 generations ahead while your 'top of the line' is running dated chips.
Photoshop is largely memory bound, more RAM = better photoshop experience.
You argue that x86 was faster, but said that the reason for the move to the platform was cheaper, but insinuated that SPARC and cell were better chips(Side note: Sun now offers a full line of Opterons now to try and cut end user price point among other things, but still lock down the rest of the hardware). Arch is a very complex intertwined beast, and there are ways to derive performance from cycles, and it isn't a case of more GHz wins. - grimstar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It is more like AMD is going to assimilate ATI.
- giverson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5An article in Forbes a little while back mentioned that AMD didn't even get to bid on the Apple deal because Intel offered to provide hundreds of Indian software developers to ease the transition from PowerPC to x86.
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Oops the airport Extreme basestation
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Still no actually good games on these platforms though. Prehaps an exageration but until I start seeing the likes of R:TW on a console then I'm staying well away. The point is consoles could replace the PC* but aren't making the actual games needed to do so.
*PC's will soon be well beyond the consoles in terms of power again though. - StatusQuoRules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They were until the release of Conroe
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple's laser printers used AMD CPUs.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The real reason it's better is the mass market it supports. If it was slower, it would still be a better deal because it's manufactured and sold at a much higher level. That's it's TRUE Superiority.
That's the real reason behind the switch away from Cell or Sparc. Economy of scale."
I don't disagree in the slightest here. They chose x86 for production levels rather than the quality of the chips. Proper PPC's are better than x86 but Macs never used the best there either, the PPC was designed for the server so it's not suprising Apple struggled to make a notebook utilising one. The reason x86 stays on top in terms of production is mainly due to MS dominance. Nobody is going to invest in hardware that the worlds largest marketshare OS doesn't run on. Also theres a lot of market inertia as is normal when a standard like this comes about. Rarely is the best product the biggest selling, usually mindshare (which generally has little to do with quality) plays a much bigger part.
As we move towards things like Java and .Net it will become easier to port between different architectures and then x86 will start to slip into history as other technically superior archs get better market penetration. Also with virtualisation advances I wouldn't be suprised to see more powerful processors get x86 emulation to reasonable levels enough to run x86 OSes removing the last obsticle.
"I think even the most stalwart Apple fanatic has to admit the claims of PPC superiority at lower clock speeds were a steaming pile of *****.
We ALL know that out Windows version of Photoshop smoked the PPC versions even at lower clock speeds. Real world numbers crushed the hype."
Clock speed is about as relevant to power as digg is to nuclear bombs. An UltraSPARC 500 will walk all over a 1800 x86 with comparitive hardware around them. I don't know how often we have to keep repeating this but clock speed != power and never has. It doesn't even hold for x86's anymore where they use a comparitive power scale. A Sempron 3000+ actually clocks at 1800 and the same holds true for all x86's these days. Clock speed means nothing. - mikeroySoft, on 10/19/2009, -1/+3I stand corrected, i should get my facts straight before posting ;)
The point remains, ibm and moto, not amd =) - ibolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ GMorgan & grimstar
AMD may be a lot bigger than Ati, but IBM is bigger than Microsoft. AMD's Market Cap is around 13 Billion and Ati's about 6.
Actually this is not a merger either, it's an acquisition. So I was wrong about that, sorry but we dutch people USED to have a good tech website.
I do believe antivirus88 was on topic. AMD is more attractive in combination with Ati GPU's plus memory, than Intel with Intel GPU's and shared memory. I think there just trying to get Apple's attention. - tyrione, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3An article in Forbes a little while back mentioned that AMD didn't even get to bid on the Apple deal because Intel offered to provide hundreds of Indian software developers to ease the transition from PowerPC to x86.
---------------
This has to be the dumbest speculation of all-time, concerning the transition.
We at NeXT and then Apple have always had OS X running on Intel. Get that through your thick skulls. The code base has always been there. The need to make them bit for bit optimized came about during the Universal phase.
Apple most certainly can use AMD, if it so chooses. What will motivate them to do so is if Intel can't meet Apple's needs. - JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1-Ratteler
Ignorance is bliss on your part. - Neilyos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not talking about the CPU. Again, my previous comment stands. Anyone who's taken one apart should aready know.
- ibolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ zybch
I was merely saying that Apple would not be likely to switch to AMD because of what I said. If Apple can go from their ppc line to Intel x86 in 8 months, how hard would it be to go from there to AMD x86? Intel cannot just dictate Apple as long as Apple can switch to AMD. And AMD has been saying alot about a partnership with Apple since the anouncement of Apple's transition to Intel @ WWDC 2005.
PS
I do hope you lost a bit of that frustration about big corps and so. - cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's an argument for Dell using Intel chips, but Apple hardly makes enough hardware to be concerned with manufacturing ramp up.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2dfick: buried for pretending you know whether or not he works for Apple.
- grayapple, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1too much talk about Chips.. I want some fish!
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Apple's already-used AMD chips," or "Apple has already used AMD chips"? Grammar, people, grammar.
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I think the older airport express wireless routers used AMD processors
- eyechart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think it is also notable and should be pointed out that Apple has been shipping keyboards with the letters 'A', 'M' and 'D' on them for 30 years now.
- antivirus88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Not to mention AMD owns ATI now. Probably has A LOT to do with it.
- mikeroySoft, on 10/19/2009, -7/+5I'm not sure what you mean... G5,4,3 = IBM chips, previous to that it was Motorolla (IIRC)
Hm... IBM, Motorolla... yes, you're absolutely correct, we should have opened a case and TOTALLY seen that AMD was in there! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Well now that they've lost their exclusive with Dell they needed to find some other dumb as ***** company to dictate terms to. After all, we couldn't possibly have intel playing on a level playing-field could we!
Face it, the only time Intel ever innovate (if you can use that word in the same sentence as 'intel') is when they have to compete fairly, which is not all that often. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I think even the most stalwart Apple fanatic has to admit the claims of PPC superiority at lower clock speeds were a steaming pile of *****.
We ALL know that out Windows version of Photoshop smoked the PPC versions even at lower clock speeds. Real world numbers crushed the hype.
Now that OX X is running on x86 architecture, we have clear proof what we knew all along. X86 has ALWAYS been faster.
But even all THAT proof, isn't WHY x86 is Superior.
The real reason it's better is the mass market it supports. If it was slower, it would still be a better deal because it's manufactured and sold at a much higher level. That's it's TRUE Superiority.
That's the real reason behind the switch away from Cell or Sparc. Economy of scale. - triplep, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3bury
- danmccormick, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Apple has always put superior parts in their machines. With the Core 2 Duo platform Intel has better notebook and desktop chips and chipsets. The core 2s give better performance with lower wattage. When AMD has a better product, Apple will start using AMD chips in their machines
- ibolt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Not to get too technical, but AMD doesn't own Ati. There going to fuse, there is kind of a difference there.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9At this point, PC gamer is a dying breed.
Getting a Wii or PS3 or Xbox360 will cost you less than a graphics card upgrade, plus games are built for that specific platform, guaranteed to work, no hassle. - Neilyos, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1anyone who's ever taken apart an old Mac should know this
- goat77, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Well TomK, that would really attract the gamers.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is