OK, but if you look at the evolution of Apple machines, you'll see that Apple has replaced CPUs with newer ones which were similar priced and which had a similar TDP. Apple seeks to maintain its profit margins. If Apple changes to AMD, it will be to save its own costs or to increase performance for the same cost. Macs will probably not get cheaper.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD iMac
- Thread starter shujin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK, but if you look at the evolution of Apple machines, you'll see that Apple has replaced CPUs with newer ones which were similar priced and which had a similar TDP. Apple seeks to maintain its profit margins. If Apple changes to AMD, it will be to save its own costs or to increase performance for the same cost. Macs will probably not get cheaper.
Speaking from a formerly huge AMD fanboy (had them since even before the Thunderbirds came out in `98, AMD 486/66 lol...)
Stay away.
Intel-4-Life now. It's worth the price premium. Intel's a stable company that will always be there. AMD got the jump on them with 64-bit chips and dual-core chips, but Intel PERFECTS the technology and blows AMD out of the water.
I could care less about how my CPU works with my GPU because they're the same vendor. It's not like we're playing a game of telephone here, it's a piece of hardware.
It's funny watching the two major chip companies (remeber Cyrix? lol) compete with each other over the last decade. Intel was always very big on clockspeeds and AMD was always focused on doing the most efficiency per cycle (which is why AMD64 chips around 2.0GHz would outperform the Intel Pentium4 chips around 3GHz). Technology will always improve and the competition will just hasten new technology.
As for me, I don't care what they do but I'd prefer they left it intel-only because it's simpler from a software standpoint to manage your hardware when you only have, say, 4 or 5 different hardware configurations per model. Add AMD chips in there and you now increase that significantly.
Still being optimistic for an updated iMac released following WWDC in June so I can get a nice 27" plus an Airport Extreme.
Stay away.
Intel-4-Life now. It's worth the price premium. Intel's a stable company that will always be there. AMD got the jump on them with 64-bit chips and dual-core chips, but Intel PERFECTS the technology and blows AMD out of the water.
I could care less about how my CPU works with my GPU because they're the same vendor. It's not like we're playing a game of telephone here, it's a piece of hardware.
It's funny watching the two major chip companies (remeber Cyrix? lol) compete with each other over the last decade. Intel was always very big on clockspeeds and AMD was always focused on doing the most efficiency per cycle (which is why AMD64 chips around 2.0GHz would outperform the Intel Pentium4 chips around 3GHz). Technology will always improve and the competition will just hasten new technology.
As for me, I don't care what they do but I'd prefer they left it intel-only because it's simpler from a software standpoint to manage your hardware when you only have, say, 4 or 5 different hardware configurations per model. Add AMD chips in there and you now increase that significantly.
Still being optimistic for an updated iMac released following WWDC in June so I can get a nice 27" plus an Airport Extreme.
This is ALL subjective opinion.
To each his/her own.
I use both...nothing wrong with either one. The last thing the world wants is for AMD to tank, because then you'll only have ONE choice. The choice isn't bad but competition pushes innovation. No competition, no innovation, and prices rise. Consumers drive the market. If AMD were doing bad business-wise, then AMD would tank. Evidently, they're doing something right. I'll root for the little guy when, if the big guy wins, my choices are gone.
BTW, isn't Intel facing several suits because of apparently monopolizing (I believe one of these was actually filed by the FTC)?
uuuhhh... im sorry, but no. this will not happen. the AMD processors wont perform better then the Intel counterparts.
and??.....
ok seriously... think about what you just said.. this T1055, same clock as the i7-860, all it really has going for it is the fact that its 6-core. the performance of it wont be that great, and rebuilding OSX/putting it into the imac/potentially losing deals with Intel wont be justifiable from one AMD chip - that isnt even going to compare in reality.
i do agree with what you said about the pricing of the Intel processors etc
i dont know about that.
thats for sure - the price of apple macs wont go down - with or without AMD.
no i dont think thats possible. then it wouldnt be apple, and performance would be..well...windows like
You're right, AMD processors will not perform better than its Intel counterparts. Still, AMD is going to deliver a whole line of 6-core processors for a quarter of the price of Intel's offering. And AMD is gonna deliver quad-core mobile processors that runs at 25W and 35W (Intel's coolest quad-core offering runs at 45W). There's some value in all of it. The Mac processors are all about price and power consumption, not about pure performance. And AMD is going to deliver that. The future of AMD looks better than its past 2 years.
Intel will not update its Core i5-750 and Core i7-860 in the near future. The high-end iMac will probably remain with the same processors. Intel is sitting in a very comfortable position right now, without serious competition from AMD to its high-end processors. I seriously hope AMD catches up, so Intel will stop ripping off its high-end consumers.
The T1055 is the same clock as i7-860 and has 50% more cores. I don't know how this processor will perform. However, Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz performs about the same as Core i5-750. Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz will certainly perform better than that. And for the same price of a Core i5-750. I don't know how much Apple will have to modify its Mac OS to fit AMD processors, though.
As for Intel deals, I think Apple has already lost them when it chose to use NVIDIA 9400M in its laptops. Since then, Intel has never made another custom chip for the Macs, nor has it given any preferential treatment to Apple. I suspect Intel considers NVIDIA a more dangerous competitor than AMD. In fact, I think Apple could even use the possibility of adopting AMD chips to have more bargaining power in its negotiations with Intel.
Only problem is that there aren't much apps that can utilize 6 cores so IMO it'd be useless. Keep in mind that Intels have Hyper-Threading which gives up to 30% boost if app can take advantage of it. IF Lynnfield goes 32nm, they will outperform any AMD CPU.
AMD concentrates more on low-end servers and low-end computer and it's not bad choice, a lot money is made in that market
Not useless. You may get good performance by running many apps simultaneosly.
Yes, but there's also products for the high-end market...
AMD partnership could be fruitful for both parties,
Creating an ATI graphics core for the iPhone and iPad could give AMD a rival to the Tegra for example.
Of course... Jobs, and by extensions Apple won't let an AMD processor into their range unless they approve of it wholeheartedly. It could be a couple of years if they are going to have to design a whole new chip for them.
Creating an ATI graphics core for the iPhone and iPad could give AMD a rival to the Tegra for example.
Of course... Jobs, and by extensions Apple won't let an AMD processor into their range unless they approve of it wholeheartedly. It could be a couple of years if they are going to have to design a whole new chip for them.
I think you may be right about intel getting a lot of complaints about monopolies - if memory serves there were a few filed by the EU.
I think it had more to do with the fact that Intel had some type of agreement with certain vendors where they were paid a little extra (or received an absurd discount) on OEM chips if they were to not use AMD chips.
Let me try to explain, because that could be confusing:
Pilot's Computer Shop has AMD and Intel chips. The owner buys them for $50 per chip from the manufacturer.
Intel and Pilot's Computer make an agreement that Pilot's Computer will stop buying AMD chips and Intel agrees that they will sell the chips to Pilot for $40, so it was "win-win", but illegal because it's collusion.
Or something like that. I used to post constantly on the AMD Forums (Folding@Home!) before I made my switch back in `04.
I agree - Intel NEEDS AMD to stay afloat because it prevents them from becoming a complete monopoly, just like the way Windows NEEDED Apple to stay afloat during the rocky times in the `90s (and Windows bought a bunch of Apple stock!).
So, either way, that's fine, but keep your budget chips away from my iMac. If you are looking for a budget system, then an Apple Computer is simply not for you, go buy an eMachines.
If a price difference of $50 to $150 is really the deciding factor on whether or not you can purchase an Apple computer, take your money and put it in a savings account. You obviously aren't in a financial position to purchase a computer.
I think it had more to do with the fact that Intel had some type of agreement with certain vendors where they were paid a little extra (or received an absurd discount) on OEM chips if they were to not use AMD chips.
Let me try to explain, because that could be confusing:
Pilot's Computer Shop has AMD and Intel chips. The owner buys them for $50 per chip from the manufacturer.
Intel and Pilot's Computer make an agreement that Pilot's Computer will stop buying AMD chips and Intel agrees that they will sell the chips to Pilot for $40, so it was "win-win", but illegal because it's collusion.
Or something like that. I used to post constantly on the AMD Forums (Folding@Home!) before I made my switch back in `04.
I agree - Intel NEEDS AMD to stay afloat because it prevents them from becoming a complete monopoly, just like the way Windows NEEDED Apple to stay afloat during the rocky times in the `90s (and Windows bought a bunch of Apple stock!).
So, either way, that's fine, but keep your budget chips away from my iMac. If you are looking for a budget system, then an Apple Computer is simply not for you, go buy an eMachines.
If a price difference of $50 to $150 is really the deciding factor on whether or not you can purchase an Apple computer, take your money and put it in a savings account. You obviously aren't in a financial position to purchase a computer.
i sure hope that you are right. the 6-core do sound, but as HellHammer said - nothing can bloody utilise it!
we all know that apple isnt about pure performance (except maybe in the MP) - if they were we most certainly wouldnt be discussing AMD possibly being adopted
GOOD!. to be honest with you - i hope they dont upgrade those models anytime soon. i purchased the i7 when it came out, i want it to be the "top" model imac for a while yet
i bought it at this time for that one reason - to last as long as possible. im sure many other users mirror my opinion. there REALLY is no need to upgrade the CPUs each 6 (or so) months - why dont they focus on HDD technology or something!2.66ghz intel, same as 3.4ghz amd? i dont care what you say, no amount of architecture upgrades can equal that massive amount of a performance increase
i would hazard a guess and they that they are roughly on par once the 6-cores come out.who knows though, we will see. thats not entirely relevant though, the point is - that apple would not make users choose between the processors, and the processor speed, and the core count. and also that "core-ness" means nothing these days (NOT MANY APPLICATIONS ARE MULTITHREADED/MULTICORED YET ARGH).
possibly. we will see. apple still seems to have some good ties with intel - they got the chips for the imac a week earlier (or so), the last MP was an entire month early! they get a large portion of intels CPU supplies and whatnot.
sorry for late reply btw
What about 32 core MacPro with two bulldozers (interlagos) next year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
Do you think that the next generation is going to have a video card such as HD5850 (mobile version)?
why is apple not simply releasing osx ,so the customer could choose what setup he wants or can afford
ok i just bought a TAM in as new condition which did cost me more then a 21.5 iMac , but thats not the point , its a real Mac and not a pc with a apple sticker , so for me its worth every pence and my next apple product i buy will be a lisa
as i collect old apple products (the lisa is not a Mac but build by apple )
but for a new computer i cant see a point of spending more the £600 and i mean including monitor keyboard and mouse and at the moment i get from apple in that priceclass only a mini without anything and not even apple care
so if apple would make osx multi platform like windows or linux, especially linux as it runs literally on everything without much hassle (depending on the distro) and i would be happy to buy snow leopard for double the price of windows 7 to put it on the computer of my choice as it is the better os
but they should act a bit fast as i dont have time forever and there are deals for new computers out there i cant resist for long and linux works out of the box on them
ok i just bought a TAM in as new condition which did cost me more then a 21.5 iMac , but thats not the point , its a real Mac and not a pc with a apple sticker , so for me its worth every pence and my next apple product i buy will be a lisa
as i collect old apple products (the lisa is not a Mac but build by apple )
but for a new computer i cant see a point of spending more the £600 and i mean including monitor keyboard and mouse and at the moment i get from apple in that priceclass only a mini without anything and not even apple care
so if apple would make osx multi platform like windows or linux, especially linux as it runs literally on everything without much hassle (depending on the distro) and i would be happy to buy snow leopard for double the price of windows 7 to put it on the computer of my choice as it is the better os
but they should act a bit fast as i dont have time forever and there are deals for new computers out there i cant resist for long and linux works out of the box on them
if they do decide to use amd (which i hope they don't since it has been producing inferior junk for the past few years), then this is what will most likely happen:
apple will release the lower-end systems with amd processors, claiming that they're cheaper (but same as current price), because they use the lower-cost amd cpu's, and they will ignore the fact that the previous, more capable intel systems were the same exact price.
because it would cause apple to have additional headaches of dealing with third party drivers and increased amounts of exploits. they'd probably also lose some potential profit which they currently get from their overpriced computers. it would probably make more sense for them to drop their system costs to under $2k rather than have osx work on custom systems. they could then still earn their money, and overall have more sales/customers.
apple will release the lower-end systems with amd processors, claiming that they're cheaper (but same as current price), because they use the lower-cost amd cpu's, and they will ignore the fact that the previous, more capable intel systems were the same exact price.
because it would cause apple to have additional headaches of dealing with third party drivers and increased amounts of exploits. they'd probably also lose some potential profit which they currently get from their overpriced computers. it would probably make more sense for them to drop their system costs to under $2k rather than have osx work on custom systems. they could then still earn their money, and overall have more sales/customers.
Hmm, no, Apple can't release OSX to everyone... That would cripple their computer sales. Part of the lure to use OSX is that you have to pay a price premium compared to IBM-PC equivalent machines. By releasing OSX to everyone, this would essentially kill their sales because the average user would then go run and buy a cheap eMachines or something and throw OSX on it.
Apple also gives you everything you need regardless of your computer choice (except for the Mini or MacPro where you supply your own display). That means you can be sure your wireless, audio, etc. all will work right out of the box, and you won't need to have to buy third-party hardware/software to make it work.
As for the ATI 5000 series cards, I don't know if it's worth it to sacrifice the move from the 4000 desktop series cards (which I believe is what they're using in the i7 now, but it may be underclocked because of space/fan issues?) to the 5000 MOBILE cards.
Granted, the 5000's have DX11 support, but I'm pretty sure that's still in development so unless a lot of games really start to take advantage of it, I'd rather have the faster card. I think Battlefield BC2 is DX11 supported? Not sure of many others.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pulling out the data from the deep recesses of my memory from a few months ago, it may have changed.
Apple also gives you everything you need regardless of your computer choice (except for the Mini or MacPro where you supply your own display). That means you can be sure your wireless, audio, etc. all will work right out of the box, and you won't need to have to buy third-party hardware/software to make it work.
As for the ATI 5000 series cards, I don't know if it's worth it to sacrifice the move from the 4000 desktop series cards (which I believe is what they're using in the i7 now, but it may be underclocked because of space/fan issues?) to the 5000 MOBILE cards.
Granted, the 5000's have DX11 support, but I'm pretty sure that's still in development so unless a lot of games really start to take advantage of it, I'd rather have the faster card. I think Battlefield BC2 is DX11 supported? Not sure of many others.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pulling out the data from the deep recesses of my memory from a few months ago, it may have changed.
Yea, ATI Mobile 4850 is based on desktop 4850 with lower clocks and performance is about the same as desktop 4830.
ATI Mobile 5850 is based on desktop 5770 which is about as good as 4850
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/875286/
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727
That would make one hell of an iMac. I always thought that apple should have offered multiple processors like a PPC in the Mac pro as well as intel, but AMD would be perfectly fine with me.
The i7 in iMac is faster. That's 125W so too hot, though there is 95W version coming soon
Can i hope to see mobility radeon hd 5870 in the next generation (i hate long names
Likely not ATI 5870 but maybe 5850, but it's not faster than 4850
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/875286/
They're still X86, it wouldn't be that hard at all. It's not like they're going PPC to X86 all over again.
Another chipset to support for Apple, since Apple keeps paring the number of chipsets down all the time ... I doubt Apple would support it due to cost of supporting another architecture.
Repackaging CPUs and chipsets to reduce size and heat/watts used is one thing, adding megabucks in a new chipset from AMD is something else.
Repackaging CPUs and chipsets to reduce size and heat/watts used is one thing, adding megabucks in a new chipset from AMD is something else.