Can we put AMD/Ryzen Mac rumours to end

[0990848]

I have no idea why people would even want Ryzen Macs. Core for core, thread for thread, AMD is behind Intel. The only reason r/AMD circle jerks these processors is because how cheap they are, mindlessly comparing them against the 7700K which is a 4c/8t processor.

If you're an Apple customer, you generally don't care how much you pay for the machine and want the best possible internals. And as such, Intel is still on top currently.


Hell the sooner Apple dumps AMD in favour of Nvidia on the GPU side as well, the better.

 

[jrichards1408]

What have you been smoking? The AMD chips are as fast as Intel. They are ahead especially on multi tasking.

 

[1050792]

What have you been smoking? The AMD chips are as fast as Intel. They are ahead especially on multi tasking.

Oh really? Tell me more about that crazy theory.

 

[Fishrrman]

Apple has stated within the past couple of days that they ARE NOT going to move to AMD.

"It's dead, Jim!"

 

[cube]

Apple has stated within the past couple of days that they ARE NOT going to move to AMD.

"It's dead, Jim!"

I have heard nothing of the sort.

 

[0990848]

What have you been smoking? The AMD chips are as fast as Intel. They are ahead especially on multi tasking.

I see you fell for the manipulative 7700k vs ryzen 1700/1800 comparisons. compare 6900k vs a ryzen and you will see it falls flat: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3605vs3916. important to note that the 8c/16t chip by intel is 10 months old and still demolishing ryzen. intel makes the best CPU silicon, period. it will be interesting to see how their ryzen 5s (which are 4c/8t processors) compare with intel's 7700k

the only advantage of ryzen is the value/price performance. now depending on who you are, you may care about that. but I just want the best possible processors in Macs. not to mention a whole heap of other things like macOS not working properly (as of yet) on amd processors and thunderbolt.

 

[cube]

Troll thread.

 

[bigtomato]

I see you fell for the manipulative 7700k vs ryzen 1700/1800 comparisons. compare 6900k vs a ryzen and you will see it falls flat: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3605vs3916. important to note that the 8c/16t chip by intel is 10 months old and still demolishing ryzen. intel makes the best CPU silicon, period. it will be interesting to see how their ryzen 5s (which are 4c/8t processors) compare with intel's 7700k

the only advantage of ryzen is the value/price performance. now depending on who you are, you may care about that. but I just want the best possible processors in Macs. not to mention a whole heap of other things like macOS not working properly (as of yet) on amd processors and thunderbolt.

I have no idea why people would even want Ryzen Macs. Core for core, thread for thread, AMD is behind Intel. The only reason r/AMD circle jerks these processors is because how cheap they are, mindlessly comparing them against the 7700K which is a 4c/8t processor.

If you're an Apple customer, you generally don't care how much you pay for the machine and want the best possible internals. And as such, Intel is still on top currently.


Hell the sooner Apple dumps AMD in favour of Nvidia on the GPU side as well, the better.

You should be thanking AMD because at least now you have a choice. They went through a really tough time and believe they are back on track and more focused than ever. Chances are you won't see AMD cpu in a mac just because apple has more ties to intel and future processors might be built by intel for apple so doesn't make sense for apple to get into a new architecture. Having said that I would like to see a Hackintosh with AMD CPU

 

[jrichards1408]

I see you fell for the manipulative 7700k vs ryzen 1700/1800 comparisons. compare 6900k vs a ryzen and you will see it falls flat: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3605vs3916. important to note that the 8c/16t chip by intel is 10 months old and still demolishing ryzen. intel makes the best CPU silicon, period. it will be interesting to see how their ryzen 5s (which are 4c/8t processors) compare with intel's 7700k

the only advantage of ryzen is the value/price performance. now depending on who you are, you may care about that. but I just want the best possible processors in Macs. not to mention a whole heap of other things like macOS not working properly (as of yet) on amd processors and thunderbolt.

Check hardforum for a more apples to apples comparison. The amd is a beast and that's coming from an Intel fanboy

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I have no idea why people would even want Ryzen Macs. Core for core, thread for thread, AMD is behind Intel. The only reason r/AMD circle jerks these processors is because how cheap they are, mindlessly comparing them against the 7700K which is a 4c/8t processor.

If you're an Apple customer, you generally don't care how much you pay for the machine and want the best possible internals. And as such, Intel is still on top currently.


Hell the sooner Apple dumps AMD in favour of Nvidia on the GPU side as well, the better.

What if it does happen and your wrong?

 

[cynics]

I see you fell for the manipulative 7700k vs ryzen 1700/1800 comparisons. compare 6900k vs a ryzen and you will see it falls flat: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3605vs3916. important to note that the 8c/16t chip by intel is 10 months old and still demolishing ryzen. intel makes the best CPU silicon, period. it will be interesting to see how their ryzen 5s (which are 4c/8t processors) compare with intel's 7700k

the only advantage of ryzen is the value/price performance. now depending on who you are, you may care about that. but I just want the best possible processors in Macs. not to mention a whole heap of other things like macOS not working properly (as of yet) on amd processors and thunderbolt.

A lot of people compare them based on TDP, especially in an AIO configuration. A 6900K is out of the question for an iMac, never going to happen. However a 1800X is more reasonable. Performance per watt, which should be the comparison...not price especially at the prices Apple charges which don't reflect reality anyway. And yes their are Intel variants that are better however its a moot point if they'd heat up and drip out of the speaker openings on the bottom.

BTW, I've always preferred Intel. I'm heavily vested into their proprietary tech like quick sync and thunderbolt. Plus being mostly a Linux user I prefer their open source nature with the Linux community which makes dealing with their hardware easier. Given the choice I would pay more for a 6900K.

 

[purpletalon55]

I don't like retards, but Ryzen rapes all of items current tech, its just better it performs better it runs cooler uses less power and gets higher frame rate In gaming and its marketed towards video editors not gamers as much so YES, AMD is relevant and this is coming from someone who has never owned a single AMD cpu. I haven't bought just intel because I'm a fan most of my computers have been gifts and I had no idea what I was getting, although I did buy my iMac because I was tired of windows and wanted to try out the Mac side of the spectrum and while I don't own a powerful Mac its way less powerful than my gaming desktop with windows it gets the job done because MacOs is more efficient and can use hardware better.

Windows is bloated and inefficient in comparison and things just run dog slow.

If I got another laptop which I might soon I would probably invest in a amd based laptop at least hardware wise.And I wouldn't get a gaming laptop since I have had a few and as convenient as they have been they have just not held value at all.

 

[hurtmemore]

I don't think they're going with AMD. Here's a quote from Federighi from their conversation the other day about their upcoming pro lineup, when asked about ARM chips coming over to Mac. He mentions using ARM for the touchbar on Mac, and then says -

... "So we see a really interesting complementary role for our silicon working with Intel. And we certainly work with Intel on our needs to deliver chips into our Mac roadmap and we see that continuing."

So he's dismissing the idea of ARM coming to Macs, but he's also emphasizing their relationship with Intel. Still possible to see Ryzen I guess, but I wouldn't expect it.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/

 

[danielwsmithee]

I've never been a huge fan of AMD, but your silly to not recognize that Ryzen is the best option available currently for an iMac.

The iMac wont handle any processor with a TDP greater than about ~95 Watts. The primary heavy users of the high end iMacs are Video production, photography etc, and software developers. All of which would well served by the higher core count Ryzen offers.

That being said I doubt Apple switches to Ryzen, but AMD will at least force Intel to reevaluate their strategy with higher core count CPUs. That will be the biggest impact that Ryzen has.

 

[purpletalon55]

ryzen is good value and I plan to wait till PCIE4 next year to get a new pc built for myself and a family member. Its stupid to buy now.

 

[Zwopple]

I see you fell for the manipulative 7700k vs ryzen 1700/1800 comparisons. compare 6900k vs a ryzen and you will see it falls flat: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3605vs3916. important to note that the 8c/16t chip by intel is 10 months old and still demolishing ryzen. intel makes the best CPU silicon, period. it will be interesting to see how their ryzen 5s (which are 4c/8t processors) compare with intel's 7700k

the only advantage of ryzen is the value/price performance. now depending on who you are, you may care about that. but I just want the best possible processors in Macs. not to mention a whole heap of other things like macOS not working properly (as of yet) on amd processors and thunderbolt.

The thing is the 1800X has a TDP of 95 and fits the thermal requirements of the iMac where as the 7700k has a TDP of 140 and will never survive in an iMac's case without massive upgrades to the thermal architecture.

I still don't think this generation of Ryzen chips are great enough in multi core performance to make up for their single core performance and that is why Apple isn't going to ditch Intel yet. But say next year Intel only increases performance again by 5-15% and Ryzen cleans up a bit and releases a massive 20-40% YoY performance increase, then we're going to see a lot more potential for Apple to use these chips.

 

[joema2]

I have no idea why people would even want Ryzen Macs...

People don't really want Ryzen iMac per se -- they want an improved iMac with more cores and better performance. Since Intel has been unable to produce a mainstream CPU with > 4 cores, Ryzen might be one way to get that.

Intel's laggardly development of > 4 core mainstream CPUs is remarkably similar to their refusal to develop a 64-bit x86 instruction set in the late 1990s. This was an artificial constraint designed as a marketing method to bolster their upcoming 64-bit Itanium CPU.

Back then AMD stepped in and developed 64-bit x86 instructions, and those 64-bit AMD CPUs proliferated so rapidly that by the time Intel finally realized their error, it was too late. For Intel to add 64-bit instructions to their own x86 CPUs, they humiliatingly had to license those from AMD.

In the succeeding years, Intel with their huge fabrication and R&D budget pulled far ahead. However then a developmental malaise set in, and Intel CPU development has stagnated somewhat. Part of this is due to approaching architectural and process limits, but part is intentional. If tiny AMD can develop an 8-core mainstream CPU with such good performance, obviously Intel could have done this long ago.

AMD is not stopping there -- they may have a 16-core Ryzen by end of this year. Intel would greatly prefer selling high-margin Xeon CPUs which at a given clock rate and core count don't perform any better than an i7. However AMD has forced their hand on this.

I don't really think Apple will make a Ryzen iMac, but consumers win either way. If they make one, good. If they don't but Intel fears they might, this will probably wring concessions from Intel and spur their own development. Either way the market will still be flooded with Ryzen-based Windows PCs, so Intel must act -- regardless of what Apple does.

Re "Can we put AMD/Ryzen rumors to end?", the very name of this website is Mac Rumors. A key purpose is to discuss speculative or rumored events. If you don't like people doing the very thing the website is named for, maybe you're at the wrong place.

 

[Appleaker]

I don't know why they first appeared...

I'll put it simply:
Macs will NOT use Ryzen processors.

 

[0990848]

Here's a quote from Federighi from their conversation the other day

... "So we see a really interesting complementary role for our silicon working with Intel. And we certainly work with Intel on our needs to deliver chips into our Mac roadmap and we see that continuing."

He's also emphasizing their relationship with Intel.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/

I don't know why they first appeared...

I'll put it simply:
Macs will NOT use Ryzen processors.

Thank you.

 

[Trebuin]

If they end up throwing xeons in the iMac like that rumor said...I'd be surprised. I can actually use that power, but man is that overkill. You'd have to need it for professional work or something.

Me at my new job discovering I have a Xeon 8c/16t: "uh, why do I have a raid system with to 4800 rpm hard drives in it? I didn't know they still made them that slow."

 

[cynics]

If they end up throwing xeons in the iMac like that rumor said...I'd be surprised. I can actually use that power, but man is that overkill. You'd have to need it for professional work or something.

Me at my new job discovering I have a Xeon 8c/16t: "uh, why do I have a raid system with to 4800 rpm hard drives in it? I didn't know they still made them that slow."

The person sourcing those 4800rpm HDDs should get a job at Apple! lol

 

[CWallace]

I am sure Apple is examine Ryzen in the lab, but I do not believe it will launch this year (or probably next) in an Apple computer product.

Once Ryzen has had time to truly prove itself in the real world across a wide variety of applications and the general computing public (consumer, prosumer, enthusiast, professional, technical) are comfortable with it, then Apple will seriously consider switching from Intel.

 

[curmudgeonette]

The thing is the 1800X has a TDP of 95 and fits the thermal requirements of the iMac where as the 7700k has a TDP of 140 and will never survive in an iMac's case without massive upgrades to the thermal architecture.

7700K has a TDP of 91W, unchanged from the 91W of the 6700K which is available in the 2015 iMac. Perhaps you were thinking of the six to ten core Broadwell-E 6800K, 6850K, 6900K, or 6950X which have a TDP of 140W.

BTW, Ryzen 1700 has a TDP of 65W. Someone online (elsewhere) crunched some benchmarks and calculated that the performance per watt of the 1700 is better than all other tested CPUs - Kaby Lake, Skylake, Broadwell-E, and even the other Ryzens.

 

[Appleaker]

I am sure Apple is examine Ryzen in the lab, but I do not believe it will launch this year (or probably next) in an Apple computer product.

Once Ryzen has had time to truly prove itself in the real world across a wide variety of applications and the general computing public (consumer, prosumer, enthusiast, professional, technical) are comfortable with it, then Apple will seriously consider switching from Intel.

They may have briefly considered Ryzen but they are not planning to make the switch regardless of the reception from the computing public. Unless a Ryzen successor blows away Intel completely in single core and multi core performance, and Intel can't catch up, along with better thermals, they won't make any plans to switch.

 

[danielwsmithee]

They may have briefly considered Ryzen but they are not planning to make the switch regardless of the reception from the computing public. Unless a Ryzen successor blows away Intel completely in single core and multi core performance, and Intel can't catch up, along with better thermals, they won't make any plans to switch.

It already does, there is no better performing chip under 95W than the 1800X. The 7700K has slightly better single core performance, but gets blown away in multi-core.