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

Why Apple don't use AMD Ryzen/Threadripper CPU?

HomeLate said:
Maybe you should Google 'Macbook Pro cpu throttling' and do some reading.
Click to expand...
I'll admit that "AMD MacOS cpu throttling" will show fewer results.

"CPU throttling" is just one of the fashionable things that is blamed for any real or imaginary fault of a MacBook. And I wouldn't want to know how much CPU throttling you would get with a Ryzen in a MacBook Pro.
[doublepost=1544189008][/doublepost]
koyoot said:
Have YOU actually owned and used Ryzen CPU?
Click to expand...

Why would I need to? One colleague, who has been building his own computers since he is 13, and is a highly competent software developer who I trust with these things, told and his other colleagues all about it. If this guy says he had lots of trouble with a Ryzen, then he had lots of trouble with a Ryzen. (He still has hyper threading turned off because it crashes within a short time).
 
mavericks7913 said:
After Zen architecture, AMD is leading CPU market while Intel is facing the biggest crisis due to poor architecture and security issue.

AMD Ryzen works with Hackintosh. I dont see any problems of using AMD Ryzen at this point except for few features such as TB3 ports(Only Intel CPU support TB3)
Click to expand...
Skylake compared to Zen 1 is not poor. Yes, AMDs architecture is more secure, because AMD lately is less incompetent in the CPU and business side, than Intel is, but single threaded performance is still higher on Skylake than it is on Ryzen. And I have both architectures in two computers.

And Ryzen works with Hackintosh because it is the same f***** instruction set as Intel.
gnasher729 said:
Why would I need to? One colleague, who has been building his own computers since he is 13, and is a highly competent software developer who I trust with these things, told and his other colleagues all about it. If this guy says he had lots of trouble with a Ryzen, then he had lots of trouble with a Ryzen. (He still has hyper threading turned off because it crashes within a short time).
Click to expand...
Because he still may be incompetent as f***.

I have two computers: Low power Core i7 7700T/B250 + GTX 1050 Ti KalmX fanless work, for personal use, and AMD based: Ryzen 5 2600/B450 + GTX 1070 for professional use. And Ryzen was as easy to set up, build, and work with that it is with Intel/Nvidia combo.

At the beginnig of Ryzen sales there were troubles, because AMD has not provided the hardware to optimize, to anybody, right now, second generation - all of the problems are gone, and platform is as stable as Intel's.

Anybody who is claiming otherwise is unedcated about it, simply.

gnasher729 said:
I'll admit that "AMD MacOS cpu throttling" will show fewer results.

"CPU throttling" is just one of the fashionable things that is blamed for any real or imaginary fault of a MacBook. And I wouldn't want to know how much CPU throttling you would get with a Ryzen in a MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...
AMD CPUs are more efficient than Intels. And easier to cool, because their core area is less dense than Intel, so the heat sources are more spread over the dies. I was discussing this with Arctic Engineering Guru on twitter, about why there are differences in advertisement of their Fanless cooling solutions: Artcic Alpine 12 for Socket 1151, and Alpine AM4 passive for AM4 socket. And he said that the reason why Intel is harder to cool down effectively is because of the use of Thermal Paste on Intel CPus, versus soldering the HeatSpreader on AMD platforms, and because the core are is more dense on Intel, than it is on AMD. That is the reason why Intel CPUs have thermal problems, and AMD does not thave them, lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
shuto said:
From what I've read here, using a real world benchmark...
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...CC-2019-CPU-Roundup-Intel-vs-AMD-vs-Mac-1297/

It seems the intel chips perform better than amd, and thats why I guess apple will continue sticking with intel.

although the amd 32-core 2990WX looks amazing for 3D CPU rendering...
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...-Takes-the-Single-CPU-Performance-Crown-1214/
Click to expand...
All of the software PugetSystems test is heavily Intel optimized.
 
The only userland difference that I'm aware of between Coffee Lake and Ryzen is AVX512. I believe that there is reduced performance of AVX256. Clock for clock, Intel CPU's are still faster than Ryzen, but Ryzen is the clear value leader right now, and the performance gap isn't that great.
 
mavericks7913 said:
So I still dont understnad why? Just becasuse of TB3 controller or?
Click to expand...

TB3 is a small technical issue. There are enormous business reasons for not switching.
  1. Inertia. Apple isn't some strip mall computer shop at the end of the corner that just buys off the shelf components, assembles them, and sells them. That type of shop could switch in probably one week. But Apple doesn't make ATX PCs where they can just drop in an AMD mobo--Apple makes tightly integrated custom computers. Design and planning are a continuous process over many years. Switching designs mid stream is disruptive.
  2. Vendor relationships. I'd suspect that Apple and Intel have partnerships and contractual obligations. I've seen articles suggesting that Apple even gets input into Intel roadmaps and design. You don't kill positive working relationships established over a decade to switch to the latest shiny thing from the other guy.
  3. Stability and risk. Does AMD have a track record of staying ahead of Intel for years? Decades? Is that definitely going to happen this time? What if AMD can't sustain superior performance? Will Apple be forced to switch back, going through all of that disruption again? They'd have to to slink back to Intel with their tail between their legs, and hope to get favorable treatment like before? No way. There's an old phrase "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". Today that kind of applies to Intel. Even if Intel isn't the best price/performance at any one particular time, they are the safer bet overall. Even if Intel completely and utterly screws up, you can't be blamed for having picked them because (A) it was the right choice at the time and (B) because Intel is the generally accepted leader in the industry, not the scrappy second place upstart that has managed to leapfrog Intel from time to time.
  4. Management Bandwidth. They may simply be overwhelmed with everything else they are doing. Mac models have been famously late and gone multiple years without updates. Mac Pro is tremendously late for an update. Who would want to add to their burdens making a CPU switch? Who would want to make Macs even more late with a major design change?
  5. Vertical Integration and the Apple CPU. Rumor persists that Apple intends to switch to their own processors. I remain cautiously skeptical, but if that's true, then Apple is already working on a CPU switch. Why take the significant time and effort to switch from Intel to AMD if you're just going to switch again? If the plan is to go to Apple CPUs, then no doubt they'd just be content to coast on with Intel until they are ready to go it alone.
So in the face of all of the above, imagine being the guy in the Apple planning meeting trying to convince everyone to switch to AMD because, why? Threadrippers have totally awesome benchmarks? Better part cost? Those things might be compelling to an end-user, especially one who can switch right back to Intel if it turns out badly. But Apple has many, many more concerns to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nugget, Ploki, crjackson2134 and 2 others
Kpjoslee said:
Its fine when you don't overclock. And you don't overclock for workstation purposes.
Click to expand...
And some people with an AMD agenda to push are trying to imply that Intel is an overheated dumpster fire, when in fact the issue is that only the X299 PCH that supports overclockable X-series CPUs is inadequately cooled on some mobos. (And, by the way, MacBook Pro throttling issues aren't an Intel problem, it's Apple's decision to go for super-thin and not provide an adequate cooling solution.)

And, as you say, the X299 isn't a workstation component and workstation manufacturers don't overclock, and they test under extreme conditions.

I worked in Compaq's workstation/server division at one point, and I visited the main hardware development/test site in Texas around the time when the Pentium III workstations were coming out. In the lab there were a number of systems in ovens undergoing thermal stress testing. The ovens were set at 40° to 50° to test the thermals. (Actually, the disk drives were on extended cables, and were outside the ovens. It was known that the disks would fail at those temperatures - so nothing would be gained by melting the disks.) FWIW, the current <strike>Compaq</strike> HPE ProLiant servers that I buy are rated for ambient temperatures of 35°, and will shut down at 40° inlet temperature (as shown by an HVAC failure). The Z6 is also rated at 35°.
 
Last edited:
ActionableMango:

1. Ryzen is already available for Hackintosh without any issues. AMD already customized their GPU for Apple so why not?

2. Recently, Apple starts planning to switch from Intel to their own processors because Intel CPU is having a performance issue, overheating, and security problem.

3. AMD Ryzen and Threadripper already proved to have a better future while Intel does not. Do Intel has 32 core at 4ghz under $2000? No. Does Intel have a plan to make a new architecture? No. Intel had been using the same architecture for a long time with minimum improvements until AMD announced Ryzen. Current CPU lineups have serious issues such as overheating. The security issue is a hardware issue that they need to make a new architecture in order to solve the problem.

4. It's simply because they made huge mistakes.

5. I totally doubt that Apple's own processor can beat either Intel or AMD for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
mavericks7913 said:
ActionableMango:
3. AMD Ryzen and Threadripper already proved to have a better future while Intel does not. Do Intel has 32 core at 4ghz under $2000? No. Does Intel have a plan to make a new architecture? No. Intel had been using the same architecture for a long time with minimum improvements until AMD announced Ryzen. Current CPU lineups have serious issues such as overheating. The security issue is a hardware issue that they need to make a new architecture in order to solve the problem.
Click to expand...
They have. IceLake is the first new core designed by Intel sicne Nahalem. The problem is: It will not come up in any serious product, apart from low-power, low-core count anywhere in the future. At best we are looking at mid-late 2020 for release date of them, and we are talking about consumer products. Server chips, and HEDT products are usually late to the party.

And the fact, that for next year Intel plans to release Comet Lake on mainstream, and Cascade Lake for Server proves this.

I do not want to know what you will be required to use to cool down those chips, if 9th gen has thermal issues, and X299 chips also are problematic to cool, and power.
 
mavericks7913 said:
Recently, Apple starts planning to switch from Intel to their own processors because Intel CPU is having a performance issue, overheating, and security problem.
Click to expand...

That's an unconfirmed rumor.

I doubt that happens. Especially for desktop "Pro".

Next year's Mac Pro will be Xeon, like current Mac Pro/iMac Pro. ARM does not have anything in the same category.
 
mavericks7913 said:
Does Intel have a plan to make a new architecture?
Click to expand...
This is crazy talk - Intel's "tick-tock" was ["New" Architecture on current process] followed by ["Current" architecture on new process]. (where "Current" was called "New" in the previous step)

They've stopped doing the rigid A-B-A-B-A-B cadence, but both architecture and process continue to advance (admittedly not as smoothly as hoped).

Intel has made some pretty substantial architectural changes over the years.
 
Last edited:
AidenShaw said:
This is crazy talk - Intel's "tick-tock" was ["New" Architecture on current process] followed by ["Current" architecture on new process]. (where "Current" was called "New" in the previous step)

They've stopped doing the rigid A-B-A-B-A-B cadence, but both architecture and process continue to advance (admittedly not as smoothly as hoped).

Intel has made some pretty substantial architectural changes over the years.
Click to expand...

LOL. You know nothing about Intel's architecture. How come Intel CPU have Meltdown and Spectre? It's a hardware issue since Intel didnt change the fundamental architecture for a long time. Cant believe it?

https://www.techarp.com/guides/complete-meltdown-spectre-cpu-list/6/ Here is the link.

Also, "Tick-tock" that you mentioned is not architecture. They are microarchitecture. Basically, after 2011, they share the same architecture.
[doublepost=1544746782][/doublepost]
jtara said:
That's an unconfirmed rumor.

I doubt that happens. Especially for desktop "Pro".

Next year's Mac Pro will be Xeon, like current Mac Pro/iMac Pro. ARM does not have anything in the same category.
Click to expand...

Yes but still, they are preparing. We will see in 2020.
[doublepost=1544747142][/doublepost]
koyoot said:
They have. IceLake is the first new core designed by Intel sicne Nahalem. The problem is: It will not come up in any serious product, apart from low-power, low-core count anywhere in the future. At best we are looking at mid-late 2020 for release date of them, and we are talking about consumer products. Server chips, and HEDT products are usually late to the party.

And the fact, that for next year Intel plans to release Comet Lake on mainstream, and Cascade Lake for Server proves this.

I do not want to know what you will be required to use to cool down those chips, if 9th gen has thermal issues, and X299 chips also are problematic to cool, and power.
Click to expand...

They didnt. Both Meltdown and Spectre proved that Intel CPU has the same architecture since 2011. If you still think that Intel made a new architecture every few years, how come all Intel CPUs from 2011 have both Meltdown and Spectre issues? Because they basically share the same architecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ludacrisvp
AidenShaw said:
Let me hold up a mirror. ;)

You realize that AMD and ARM processors have many of the same Meltdown/Spectre vulnerabilities? Including Ryzen and Threadripper!

https://www.techarp.com/guides/complete-meltdown-spectre-cpu-list/2/

Probably not, or you wouldn't have made such an ignorant post.
Click to expand...
Aiden. Can you, for once, do a little more reasearch on the topic?

Official information from AMD.

Variant 1 and 2 is Spectre, Variant 3 is Meltdown.

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9JL1UvNzQwNjk0L29yaWdpbmFsLzAyLkpQRw==


Intel is affected by ALL THREE.

Next variants have been reported, and for Variant 2 and 3 - the history is the same. There is simply no vulnerability to it.

Why? Because the research targeted Speculative Execution from INTEL POINT OF VIEW.

It was not created by accident. Intel, for years ignored the vulnerability of their speculative execution. That is why there is zero chance that Variant 2 and 3 ever will be exploited on AMD Architecture.
 
Last edited:
mavericks7913 said:
Also, "Tick-tock" that you mentioned is not architecture. They are microarchitecture. Basically, after 2011, they share the same architecture.
Click to expand...
Please explain the difference between "architecture" and "micro-architecture" for us, and how it relates to this claim.

All of the current Intel and AMD CPUs implement the x64 instruction set - but there are many different CPUs that use many different ways that they implement that instruction set. Which are "architecture" and which are "micro-architecture"? Why do you say that a Sandy Bridge and a Skylake are the same architecture?
 
AidenShaw said:
Please explain the difference between "architecture" and "micro-architecture" for us, and how it relates to this claim.

All of the current Intel and AMD CPUs implement the x64 instruction set - but there are many different CPUs that use many different ways that they implement that instruction set. Which are "architecture" and which are "micro-architecture"? Why do you say that a Sandy Bridge and a Skylake are the same architecture?
Click to expand...
Because it is the same Architecture. But different Micro-Architectures.
 
koyoot said:
Aiden. Can you, for once, do a little more reasearch on the topic?
Click to expand...
AMD is vulnerable. Don't try to pretend that "less vulnerable" is the same as "not vulnerable".

Please.
[doublepost=1544751872][/doublepost]
koyoot said:
Because it is the same Architecture. But different Micro-Architectures.
Click to expand...
Please explain the difference between "architecture" and "micro-architecture" for us, and how it relates to this claim.
 
AidenShaw said:
AMD is vulnerable. Don't try to pretend that "less vulnerable" is the same as "not vulnerable".

Please.
Click to expand...
Read again. AMD is not vulnerable to Variant 2 and Variant 3. Why? Look down.
AidenShaw said:
Please explain the difference between "architecture" and "micro-architecture" for us, and how it relates to this claim.
Click to expand...
Maybe the same way, why Intel is vulnerable to Variant 2 and 3 of Spectre and Meltdown, and AMD is not?

Maybe it is due to differences the "Architecture"? If x86 ISA is "Architecture", then execution of it is Micro-Architecture.
 
koyoot said:
Read again. AMD is not vulnerable to Variant 2 and Variant 3. Why? Look down.
Click to expand...
I read, you didn't. "Near zero" (according to AMD) is not "zero".

And this whole tangent is supremely stupid - because this is the Mac Pro (workstation) thread.

Spectre/meltdown are basically server exploits - particularly for multi-tenant cloud-based servers. The exploits allow VMs to spy on other VMs on the same host.

They have almost zero relevance for single user workstations - unless your agenda is to push for AMD CPUs in future Mac Pros. (And by the time that the mMP appears in a year, Intel CPUs won't be vulnerable.)

What is the agenda here?
 
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