PDA

View Full Version : AMD CEO says Apple will buy its chips


betelgeuse
09-21-2006, 09:38 PM
Nothing from Apple on this, though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=AAPL:US&sid=aQmrzw_91XC8

Apoclypse
09-21-2006, 09:54 PM
Praise the lord, all mighty. I think I shed a tear.

Omnifarious
09-21-2006, 09:55 PM
Oh.............I don't know if Apple will do that.

They've always been an exclusive one chip computer platform. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but it sounds like AMD's CEO is doing more than a little hopeful reaching here.

Apoclypse
09-21-2006, 09:58 PM
Crap, I just read the article. Nothing from apple yet. Well we can hope.

3DDave
09-21-2006, 10:10 PM
Sounds like CEO babble. Oh and considering some of the actions that Apple has done in the past, none have followed the "give users choice" model (Shake).

smoothoperator
09-22-2006, 12:17 AM
Apple should buy SGI.

But I don't see why they wouldn't consider AMD.
This is good news.

mummey
09-22-2006, 12:46 AM
Apple should buy SGI.

But I don't see why they wouldn't consider AMD.
This is good news.

Wishful thinking. That's like saying Apple should buy Sun.

SGI is in a _completely_ different market. SGI doesn't posess anything worth buying.

PS: Remember. Apple != Dell ;)

EnlightenedPixel
09-22-2006, 12:53 AM
Isn't SGI going out of the market? Why should Apple buy them?

macsupremacist
09-22-2006, 04:36 AM
Yeah, to me (maybe I read this wrong) it sounded like the CEO was saying it would be a dumb move not to use both chips, so he assumes Apple will use them, rather than definitively saying so. Whether it's true or not it seemed like pure speculation.

agreenster
09-22-2006, 05:31 AM
Oh.............I don't know if Apple will do that.

They've always been an exclusive one chip computer platform. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but it sounds like AMD's CEO is doing more than a little hopeful reaching here.

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Apple used both IBM and Motorola at the same time for a couple years. (IBM for G3's and Motorola for G4's)

Wintermute
09-22-2006, 06:04 AM
This is a non-announcement. Pure speculation on the part of AMD. They must be thinking that if Dell can be shaken from being "Intel only", Apple can be too. Considering the performance of current (and engineering sample clovertown-quad core xeon-in a Mac Pro) intel chips, I doubt Apple will move to include AMD any time soon.

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Apple used both IBM and Motorola at the same time for a couple years. (IBM for G3's and Motorola for G4's)

IIRC The PowerPC chip line used in previous Macs (601 603(e), 604(e), G3, G4) were co-developed by the partnership of Apple, Motorola and IBM. That didn't last too long, Motorola got out of processors (spun the unit off as Freescale, who continued developing the G4), and IBM continued wih it's own Power architecture-part of which made its way into Apple spec G5 processors (modified IBM Power4 processors)

I thought I just read something recently about a possible reason Apple went with Intel instead of AMD was to avoid possible supply issues like the ones experienced with the IBM processors in the past (remember the days of a new Mac being announced at MWSF, then shipped in March?)

I'm too busy (or is that lazy?) to look up all the gritty details at the moment, but the Mac Pro processor upgrade article is over at Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832)

mustique
09-22-2006, 09:01 AM
Quad core Intel cpus are said to consume lots of watts.
A dual-quad MacPro would require 500 Watts just to feed the cpus.
Apple won't like this. Apple didn't liked that with the G5's too.

(AMD anounced that it will deliver 89 Watt quad core cpus with the 65 nm process.)
If Intel can't reduce power requirements or can't deliver the 45 nm process on time,
AMD is going to be a natural choice within 2 years. (for octa-cores)

Also the AMD torrenza platform could really be interesting for Apple. With torrenza, 3rd party chipmakers will be able to build specific co-processors, FP acellerators, physics processors, graphic chips etc. that can plugged into generic Opteron sockets and communicate over Hypertransport at blazingly fast speeds. IBM, Sun, etc have already jumped on the bandwagon.

We could practically get PCs with 100 times the rendering power of today.
Apple wouldn't want to be left in the cold by the time this happens.

enygma
09-22-2006, 04:45 PM
....
:( I should have read the rest of the thread first.

almux
09-23-2006, 06:01 PM
Wishful thinking. That's like saying Apple should buy Sun.

SGI is in a _completely_ different market. SGI doesn't posess anything worth buying.

PS: Remember. Apple != Dell ;)
Apple buying SUN would yet make sens... ;)

almux
09-23-2006, 06:19 PM
Quad core Intel cpus are said to consume lots of watts.
A dual-quad MacPro would require 500 Watts just to feed the cpus.
Apple won't like this. Apple didn't liked that with the G5's too.

(AMD anounced that it will deliver 89 Watt quad core cpus with the 65 nm process.)
If Intel can't reduce power requirements or can't deliver the 45 nm process on time,
AMD is going to be a natural choice within 2 years. (for octa-cores)

Also the AMD torrenza platform could really be interesting for Apple. With torrenza, 3rd party chipmakers will be able to build specific co-processors, FP acellerators, physics processors, graphic chips etc. that can plugged into generic Opteron sockets and communicate over Hypertransport at blazingly fast speeds. IBM, Sun, etc have already jumped on the bandwagon.

We could practically get PCs with 100 times the rendering power of today.
Apple wouldn't want to be left in the cold by the time this happens.

Hum... Could the new EFI OS come over one more CPU architecture? Should all the OS be re-writen to work with AMD's?
Of course, as Apple already did while using PPC chips, there was a Intel version ready to run on these chips... maybe Apple is so much "visonary" (or paranoid) to have already several versions of OSX ready for any scenario...
By now, the collaboration between Apple and Intel looks to be much more than just a client/vendor relation. Therefore, some other stuff might pop out sooner or later too, on Apple's demand.
But I also agree with you. That was also the reason why Apple didn't turn towards Intel till there wasn't a valid approach of making descent CPUs. There would have never be a switch done with the defunct lousy cooking Pentium4 style beeing yet in use.

Update: No EFI problem with AMD (also X86). AMD could run identic OSX as well

CGTalk Moderation
09-23-2006, 06:19 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.