Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AMD Bulldozer

zulkiflim

zulkiflim

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 6, 2008
256
129
Singapore
Heya


What if Apple decides to go with AMD processors??

The new architecture Bulldozer ?
Supposedly benchmarks are equivalent or better than Intel i7....

But AMD does not support thunderbolt yet ...right??

As for price, AMD chips are cheaper and if newegg is to go by the best seller are AMD phenom, with good review against everyday usage...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

As much as I love AMD I don't see it happening soon, for the most part their processors have a much higher thermal output (from what I remember, haven't been on top of that lately) and will not have the same performance to energy efficiency as the intels.
 
Doubtful. There have been rumors about Apple adopting AMD CPUs for decades but it has not happened and I doubt it will ever happen. AMD will never support Thunderbolt as it is Intel's creation and requires an Intel chipset. AMD does not want to give money to their biggest rival and Intel does not want to give something that great to their rival, they want to keep it as their feature.
 
Apple is bound to intel . even if AMD would build a processor that is 100 times faster they could not take it
thats like asking if GM would build in Ford engines in Chevrolet's because they offer a more powerful one
both things wont happen as long as the earth is turning around the sun ,so we have to wait for 2012 so we need to wait for nibriu to colide with earth , maybe after that incident apple is switching to AMD :D


but jokes aside when apple developed OSX they developed it to run on intel too from the first day and still convinced customers PPC is the way to go , so it would not surprise me if they would still do the same now telling customers intel is the future and one day announce the transition to AMD, as hackintosher's know OSX runs on AMD too, and Apple is using ATI GPU's and ATI is a stepdoughter of AMD, so if Thunderbold or lightpeak how its called in pc world does not turn out as well as hoped there is a chance , small but there is one


i mean if you would have asked in 2004 in here if apple would build in intel processors ,
everyone would have told your "that will never happen, ppc processors are far to superior "

and the real reason for switching from PPC to intel explained by steve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQcwkHwCmw
and the most important thing he forgot , any future Mac has to be able to run windows natively for whatever reason that might be :confused :
so just wait for the transition to AMD :)
 
Last edited:
CaoCao said:
AMD products are already in the MBP 15" &17", it is called the GPU
Click to expand...

This is where I'd assume we'll continue to see trends. Intel simply makes better cpu's all around. Bulldozer would only enjoy a very brief stay at the top and would quickly fall behind. But they do make fantastic GPU's thanks to ATI. I personally see Apple continuing to leverage that fact.
 
Hi xheathen,
this is your 'smart' quote: 'Intel simply makes better cpu's all around.'
Check this & weep:
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2011-03-27 at 7.55.37 PM.png
    Screen shot 2011-03-27 at 7.55.37 PM.png
    41.9 KB · Views: 222
zulkiflim said:
What if Apple decides to go with AMD processors?
Click to expand...

They won't.

The ONLY reason AMD still exists today is because Intel's Pentium 4 was garbage, it allowed AMD to have a better marketing position for their their slightly better Athlon and Duron CPUs.

Once Intel released the Core series in 2006 AMD was blown out of the water with only suckered-in fans still standing by them. If AMD hadn't bought ATI with the cash they managed to get back then, they would already be out of business.

Stan Mikulenka said:
Hi xheathen,
this is your 'smart' quote: 'Intel simply makes better cpu's all around.'
Check this & weep:
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for you because of your ignorance. What you show means nothing. Xeon is a workstation CPU. Opteron is a purely server CPU.
 
300D said:
They won't.

The ONLY reason AMD still exists today is because Intel's Pentium 4 was garbage, it allowed AMD to have a better marketing position for their their slightly better Athlon and Duron CPUs.

Once Intel released the Core series in 2006 AMD was blown out of the water with only suckered-in fans still standing by them. If AMD hadn't bought ATI with the cash they managed to get back then, they would already be out of business.
Click to expand...

AMD dominates the low-end server market. Intel has no place there due to their pricing.

I feel sorry for you because of your ignorance. What you show means nothing. Xeon is a workstation CPU. Opteron is a purely server CPU.
Click to expand...

Both, Xeons and Opterons are meant for workstations AND servers.
 
Heya


I agree about past and chips,just search youtube on it.

They "explode" without a cooling mechanism on it,but for the life of me i would never ever run machine without a cooling /stock heatsink.

The current leaked specs about Bulldozers about cooling and power consumption are a lot better compared to i7 chips.

Goggle for leaked sideshows..
Seem such an opportune time for the document to be released with the new i7 Intel "Sandy Bridge" chip recall.

But I think Apple will know best what to do in line with future plans.

Some spec on power..note the source...:)

http://www.rumorpedia.net/amd-llano-benchmarks-vs-sandy-bridge-slides-leaked/
 
i prefer AMD cpu's in the gaming rigs i build, far more stable to overclock beyond the 4 ghz ,
with a bit liquid nitro 7ghz are possible ..then it only is a question of how long your supply of liquid nitro lasts , just dont forget do not to get in contact with bare skin



and yes the opterons are not meant for normal pc's , but they make a great foundation for a gaming rig too especially if you choose a multi processor board ;)
 
Last edited:
First AMD dodges death because the Pentium 4 was a POS, now they appear to have gotten a temporary boost due to Sandy Bridge chipset problems. Perhaps Bulldozer will be good enough that it can actually be a competitor in the high end market, bobcat/fusion seem to have secured a place in the low end.

Scratch that, people have OC'ed SB to 5.7GHz on air
 
Last edited:
Hellhammer said:
Doubtful. There have been rumors about Apple adopting AMD CPUs for decades but it has not happened and I doubt it will ever happen. AMD will never support Thunderbolt as it is Intel's creation and requires an Intel chipset. AMD does not want to give money to their biggest rival and Intel does not want to give something that great to their rival, they want to keep it as their feature.
Click to expand...

Where did you see that Thunderbolt requires an Intel chipset? AFAIK, it only requires an Intel controller chip at the moment.

Hellhammer said:
AMD dominates the low-end server market. Intel has no place there due to their pricing.



Both, Xeons and Opterons are meant for workstations AND servers.
Click to expand...

And you can build serious workstations and servers with Athlon and Phenom chips too because they support ECC, unlike Core. For example, the new Dell "micro servers" (more like micro blades, actually).

There are Atom servers, but that is more of an adaptation. Intel is supposed to make real Atom server chips in the future.

zulkiflim said:
Heya


What if Apple decides to go with AMD processors??

The new architecture Bulldozer ?
Supposedly benchmarks are equivalent or better than Intel i7....

But AMD does not support thunderbolt yet ...right??

As for price, AMD chips are cheaper and if newegg is to go by the best seller are AMD phenom, with good review against everyday usage...
Click to expand...

The first desktop Bulldozer chips will be more at the enthusiast level, they won't be Fusion chips.

On the other hand, Llano seemingly will not have L3 and the core won't be really new (Stars+), so it will be more of a mainstream chip, maybe not enough for the top iMac, and Apple would certainly stick to one vendor for the whole line.

Where I would hope to see Fusion APUs ASAP would be in the MBA and MBP, as Sandy Bridge has a poor GPU.

In a year there will be Bulldozer APUs, maybe then it would be the time for the iMac.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cube said:
Where did you see that Thunderbolt requires an Intel chipset? AFAIK, it only requires an Intel controller chip at the moment.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have phrased myself better. I'm not 100% does it technically require an Intel chipset but I'm fairly sure Intel won't license it for other chipsets. AMD also bashed it already so sounds like they are not interested either.
 
having said al that above , i am very happy about the performance of my bladecentre and its power6+ ;)running various distros of Linux

and dont forget there is still another maker of processors largely overlooked
and thats ultra spark T2+ or even spark T3 made by texas instruments for sun and fujitsu siemens

most computer makers just think in the same box that is intel or if lucky amd and dont even consider anything else

how was that with "think different"

a MacPro with a spark T3 sounds good too and the MacPro is not a consumer workstation or?

16 CPU cores
8 hardware threads per core
6 MB Level 2 cache
2 embedded coherency controllers
6 coherence links
14 unidirectional lanes per coherence link
SMP to 4 sockets without glue circuitry
4 DDR3 SDRAM memory channels
Embedded PCI Express I/O interfaces
16 Embedded Crypto Acceleration Engines
2 Embedded 1GigE/10GigE interfaces
2.4Tb/s aggregate throughput per socket

just thinking different :D
 
Last edited:
300D said:
That is false information.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
http://www.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/workstations/precndt/cp.aspx?refid=precndt&s=biz&cs=555
Click to expand...

How is Mac Pro meant for consumers? Also, your Dell link:

http://www.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/workstations/precndt/cp.aspx?refid=precndt&s=biz&cs=555
Click to expand...

Here is Dell's computers for home, i.e. consumer computers. None of them is equipped with Xeon or Opteron.
 
Hellhammer said:
Maybe I should have phrased myself better. I'm not 100% does it technically require an Intel chipset but I'm fairly sure Intel won't license it for other chipsets.
Click to expand...

I think that would raise antitrust issues.

300D said:
How many computer makers offer Opterons in consumer-grade workstations? None.
Click to expand...

You can buy any Opteron workstation and run Windows on it.

Also, you can even buy an Athlon/Phenom motherboard supporting ECC and build an ultra cheap workstation yourself.
 
It's sad. I want AMD to succeed, but right now, Intel is just steamrolling them where it counts.

Bulldozer sounds good on paper, but until it's actually mass released, it's still vaporware in my eyes.

Intel has much better performance per watt, performance per clock, and is a generation ahead in die shrink technology. Until AMD can actually catch up (realistically on the first two,) I (and I'm assuming many others) will be sticking with Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back