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

Why not offer an AMD option?

LarryC

LarryC

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 19, 2002
419
33
North America
It just seems to me that Apple could easily offer an AMD option for their computers so that customers could purchase an Apple product and pay less than for the Intel version. It seems as though most of the other computer manufacturers offer this option. Why not Apple? Make the Mac platform more affordable and increase market share.
 
Reasons

AMD = more complex coding to optimize ... More processors to write for

Discounts for Intel exclusivity .... Kick backs are no longer legal ie Dell

Some Mac models get processors before the market. Ie 2009 Mac Pro and MacBook Air.
 
Because AMD processors aren't relevant anymore unless you're building a cheap gaming PC.
 
It would be possible to do, but it would create more complex model and pricing schemes, and apple knows they can command a price, and people will pay it. It's all business
 
AMD is behind in terms of performance. Apple has good relations with Intel so why to break them by using inferior CPUs?
 
AMD exists is because Intel's Pentium 4 sucked so badly it allowed AMD to get a foothold in the market. Since then, Intel's Core processors wipe the floor with anything AMD has to offer. The the purchase of ATI is the only thing that has kept AMD afloat since then.

In other words, AMD sucks too much for Apple to consider them.
 
I'm going to say that we may very well see AMD in some macs at some point.

There were some rumors floating around about this a few months back.

Personally, I'd prefer apple to stick with intel, but apple may want to provide some lower-cost alternatives or some chip sets that offer amd-ati integration
 
maflynn said:
Personally, I'd prefer apple to stick with intel, but apple may want to provide some lower-cost alternatives or some chip sets that offer amd-ati integration
Click to expand...

You can't put low-cost and Apple in same sentence! :eek: :p

Apple has clearly said they are not interested on providing cheap laptops with poor specs as they want to provide computers that "will simply work". There are even cheaper chips from Intel that Apple could use but it looks like Apple ain't interested about them. Only reason Apple could use AMD instead of Intel would be the superior IGP that will be found on next gen AMDs.
 
AMD's market is low cost gaming computers, where people cut cpu cost to get buffer gpus. Apple's always been a fan of having great cpus compared to gpus in their computers, so I can't see them making that decision unless AMD starts offering some real tempting cpu solutions.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I don't agree with everything that has been written. The consumer machines could certainly use the AMD product. Maybe the reason that inexpensive and Apple do not go hand in hand is because so many Mac users act like some kind of fundamentalist cult with SJ as their elected pope. That gets pretty old pretty quick. The consumer lines are (as far as I am concerned) just simple computers that non-pro types can use to surf the internet and use e-mail and watch funny videos on youtube. Not everybody needs the best of everything. Besides, I went to Best Buy recently to look at the iPad and there were lots of PC laptops that beat Apple all to hell as far as processor power. The Apple macbooks of the time were using the core2 technology and the much less expensive machines were using the i3, i5 and i7 chips. Apple has a great OS, but they need to give us the hardware to match their ridiculous prices. And one more thing:D When are we ever going to get an Apple laptop with a two button mouse setup? You know the type I'm talking about. The type that almost every mac user buys to replace the crappy one button mouse that used to always come with their G4 desktops. I know that every one of you goes out and buys a real mouse. Why do we put up with such crap? Just my opinion. Flame away.
 
1: the core2duos in the macbook laptops were actually clocked decently high, and usually beat out the lower clocked corei3/i5 dual core/quad core cpus you saw in lower end laptops (usually clocked around 1.6-2ghz). Even when they're both relatively same clock, there wasn't a huge difference between arrandale and core2duo chips, except for intensive multithreaded tasks like video encoding. (the larger cache in the core2duos even beat some of the i3s that are clocked at same speed when involving cache intensive processes)

2: the two mice that apple offers (mighty mouse and magic mouse) both have two buttons. I have a logitech mouse as well as my magic mouse, but I only use that logitech mouse for gaming (and that's only because bettertouchtool does not work when games like sc2 are playing-- so I need the extra tracking speed)
 
TMRaven said:
1: the core2duos in the macbook laptops were actually clocked decently high, and usually beat out the lower clocked corei3/i5 dual core/quad core cpus you saw in lower end laptops (usually clocked around 1.6-2ghz). Even when they're both relatively same clock, there wasn't a huge difference between arrandale and core2duo chips, except for intensive multithreaded tasks like video encoding. (the larger cache in the core2duos even beat some of the i3s that are clocked at same speed when involving cache intensive processes)

2: the two mice that apple offers (mighty mouse and magic mouse) both have two buttons. I have a logitech mouse as well as my magic mouse, but I only use that logitech mouse for gaming (and that's only because bettertouchtool does not work when games like sc2 are playing-- so I need the extra tracking speed)
Click to expand...

TMRaven,

I didn't know that about the processors. Thank you for sharing that information. As far as the 2 button mouse... I have always been able to go out and buy a mouse for my desktop Macs, but the laptops are a different story. Why do they insist on the crappy single-button mouse on their laptops?

I just noticed that you have the 27 inch iMac with the i7 processor. That is a beautiful computer and as far as Apple's current lineup is concerned that is the machine that tempts me the most.
 
LarryC said:
TMRaven,

I didn't know that about the processors. Thank you for sharing that information. As far as the 2 button mouse... I have always been able to go out and buy a mouse for my desktop Macs, but the laptops are a different story. Why do they insist on the crappy single-button mouse on their laptops?
Click to expand...

I do not understand.
 
AMD is still on the 45nm production process, behind Intel's 32nm CPU's. smaller is better.

rumor is that Apple is looking at AMD for future CPU's due to the fact that AMD ships a decent GPU on the CPU die, unlike Intel
 
alent1234 said:
AMD is still on the 45nm production process, behind Intel's 32nm CPU's. smaller is better.
Click to expand...

Fusion will be 32nm. Besides, Intel's 32nm lineup is pretty limited, e.g. no quad core CPUs. Basically just low-end&mainstream and high-end&server chips, no chips between them

rumor is that Apple is looking at AMD for future CPU's due to the fact that AMD ships a decent GPU on the CPU die, unlike Intel
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge's IGP will be decent. Look at the benchmarks, it's better than ATI 5450. It's true that Fusion's IGP will likely be better and it's DirectX 11 but in CPU power, AMD won't win Intel.
 
Vylen said:
Wikipedia begs to differ?
Click to expand...

I meant that currently there are no 32nm quads (there are few Xeons but they are six-cores with two cores disabled). There will be quad core SBs but there will also be 32nm quad core Fusions (just to kill the point of AMD being 45nm atm)
 
Hellhammer said:
I meant that currently there are no 32nm quads (there are few Xeons but they are six-cores with two cores disabled). There will be quad core SBs but there will also be 32nm quad core Fusions (just to kill the point of AMD being 45nm atm)
Click to expand...

Hurrah for clarification ;) Usually when I read "lineup" I think of upcoming, as opposed to current... unless of course it explicitly says "current lineup" :p
 
most people don't care about quad core

people buying an iMac want cool and quiet. and AMD isn't playing that nice with nvidia these days while Apple uses nvidia based motherboards. if fusion is as good as the hype and AMD can produce enough of them then apple may buy. AMD has been notorious over the years for not being able to produce enough product.
 
When Apple went x86, AMD had nothing to offer over Intel, and nothing for low power high performance. However things are different now and they have very nice CPUs on offer, desktop Phenom comparable to Core2Duo if not better. We will see the new architecture next year with Bulldozer, and AMD will get their name on Macintoshs by default when they rename ATI to AMD.

They have already usurped nVidia, now it's Intels turn :)

Also AMD can offer the complete package of motherboard, chipsets, processors and graphics. Apple will get stuff at cost, not sacrifice performance and increase profit.

Apple and AMD are kindred spirits.
 
Some of these responses are very uneducated, OP read cautiously.

My personal opinion on the topic is, Apple and Intel have a very close partnership. Adding AMD's processors to the basket would only spoil things and result in hurting Apple's high quality reputation. The general public think of AMD processors as low grade, or "affordable". There is some truth to that, but only to an extent. For people who do encoding and use anything that utilizes multiple threads, you'd be surprised to know that AMD's hex core processors actually keep up with i7's (quads) in most multi-processing applications, and sometimes even beat them. Considering the cost of AMD's 1090T 3.2GHz hex core processor ($275), it would be really nice to see a 27" iMac with a 1090T, or even a Mac Pro with a 1090T, or to make things significantly cheaper, AMD's 1055T 2.8GHz hex core which goes for $198. Think of bulk pricing, and you see how AMD CPU's could make Apple pricing quite a bit cheaper.

Everyone knows that Intel's high end desktop offerings beat out AMD's offerings by a significant amount, usually 10-12% clock per clock. AMD however, has usually led the market with their server offerings (blade use, grid use, etc.) due to more cores per cost. But, all of that is changing now that Intel's server offerings include Westemere's 32nm 6 core / 12 thread architecture.

The biggest pro (right now) that AMD has going for them with their high end offerings, is heat output and cost per performance. You pay less, get less than marginal performance in comparison to "equal" Intel offerings, and it runs cooler to boot. (Imagine MacBook Pro's with hex core AMD CPU's... fantastic!)

If you're a hardcore PC enthusiast, getting AMD over Intel would be silly. If your a normal user (Mac user), AMD CPU's actually make more sense. This is all my personal opinion, but being experienced with both Intel's and AMD's latest and greatest, its really hard to say Intel is actually BETTER when you factor in cost.

AMD's hex core is a fantastic processor for the price, Intel has no competition that even comes close, price wise. I would LOVE to see AMD CPU's end up in Apple products, but with Intel and Apple elbow deep in each others pockets, I really don't think it will happen.
 
if you want an amd cpu, go buy a windows pc...
if you want a apple, your going to pay for the better hardware.

Id take a mac mini over any AMD based pc anyday... Ironically, im typing from an AMD based pc thats in my living room (my baby stays tucked away in my office) this computer started out nice, but like all windows based computers, went to ***** after a few months. the cpu i must say is not snappy at all, even when it was brand new, but hey i only use this computer to browse every once in a while when im watching TV..
 
Arcadie said:
if you want an amd cpu, go buy a windows pc...
if you want a apple, your going to pay for the better hardware.

Id take a mac mini over any AMD based pc anyday... Ironically, im typing from an AMD based pc thats in my living room (my baby stays tucked away in my office) this computer started out nice, but like all windows based computers, went to ***** after a few months. the cpu i must say is not snappy at all, even when it was brand new, but hey i only use this computer to browse every once in a while when im watching TV..
Click to expand...

Yeah all windows PC go to **** in a few months, :rolleyes:

If you watch AMD their flexibility in supplying a product for a certain product run differs from that of Intel. AMD focuses on supplying the secondary market where intel allocates production to focus customers needs.
Processor live span in the manufacturing realm is very short. If a product requires a 6 month or longer life span, the manufacturer has to have the capacity to accomadate an older chip steppings. Older meaning more than 6 months old from the first day it hit litho.

When I worked at Intel and we saw an older chipset lot come through, the amount of time and planning to get that batch through the factory required a lot of resources. AMD is a very good chip. I wouldn't think its a quality issue with AMD its more than likely a logistic issue.
 
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