AMD-based Apple Notebook in the Works?

[katmail]

The claim - cited by DigiTimes - appears to be based on an increase in demand for capacitors. It's not clear why an increased demand for these components should indicate an Apple AMD-based product, particularly when the same sources suggest AMD-based machines require fewer MLCCs than Intel-based ones do.

Just as pertinent a dampener on the Taiwanese moles' claim

[tcsdoc]

Lol, I get a kick when people post things like "Apple will never use AMD". Are they the same people who posted "Apple will never use Intel"? It's the same when Apple switched to a FreeBSD version of the operating system. Apple is a very innovative company and has hit paydirt with the switch to Intel (AMD?) based products in conjunction with the OS X operating system.

This is the very reason I'm no longer a Windows user (after over 20 years). I recently made the switch and have a Mac Mini and an iMac. I use Parallels and Bootcamp for those pesky Windows programs I need (for now) but would love to see the price drop that always comes from using AMD products.

Dell swore they would never use AMD and now look at them. It's anticipated AMD will pop up soon (next year) in either the notebook or desktop arena especially with AMD's purchase of ATI. See the handwriting on the wall... It's gonna happen.

[Prasys]

Reminds me of me when I said

 

"Apple will never ever use Intel , or x86 thats for sure" and now .......

 

I can't wait for it , AMD-ATI . It will be a value thing , imagine MacBook with ATI Xpress graphics card and ATI Turion. Its far better then Intel's GMA solution and people would buy more and more macs...

[Hrgasr]

Most people don't realize that Apple only chose Intel at the time, because they had more diverse chipsets and chips in the mobile laptop market compared to AMD. It had nothing to do with Apple thinking Intel is better, because ironically, AMD has always been known for better quality at the same price as intel. I've used Intel for many years, and when I went to AMD, I never went back just like a Windows guy who goes to Apple.

[user2]

Most people don't realize that Apple only chose Intel at the time, because they had more diverse chipsets and chips in the mobile laptop market compared to AMD. It had nothing to do with Apple thinking Intel is better, because ironically, AMD has always been known for better quality at the same price as intel. I've used Intel for many years, and when I went to AMD, I never went back just like a Windows guy who goes to Apple.

 

AMD has hardly "always" been known for better quality. I still remember the dark days of crappy chipsets and instability.

[Hrgasr]

I'm not sure what chipset you used, but I've owned practically all Intel chips from Intel's original 33 Mhz SX and 66Mhz DX with math co processor all the way up to the now core Duo Imac I'm on right now. I started using AMD chips around that time as well back when they used to make the old AM386 chips which back then broke the monopoly of intel and offered better speed per its power...etc. Played countless games and I can tell you with 95% certaintly, AMD has better quality for price overall. That doesn't mean all their chips are better than intel chips, it simply means, you're better off with AMD at the same price in most cases.

 

If I could swap out the intel core duo in my Imac right now for a good old fasioned Athlon 64 dual core, or FX, or Opteron. I would in a heartbeat.

[SpeedfreaK]

I don't believe it and i don't want to believe it! Intel processors are waaaaaay better than amd ones and they are lower priced (the desktop models)

[bwhsh8r]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooo!!!!!

 

Scum of the cpu world , but hey they will have to make amd efi boards so it aint all bad.....

 

INTEL FTW

 

 

lol... thats what i said until i received an amd pc and i hope so, amd makes great chips and this will also help so that Intel won't be able to strong-arm apple into anything or be able to charge way too much

 

and user2 has a point, amd used to make crappy intel knock-offs, look it up on wikipedia, but thats the past and this is now, your only as good as your last hit.

[user2]

If I could swap out the intel core duo in my Imac right now for a good old fasioned Athlon 64 dual core, or FX, or Opteron. I would in a heartbeat.

 

 

That's just silly.

[joe75]

AMD has hardly "always" been known for better quality.

It may be hard for you to except but AMD are made with far better quality then Intel, do you think their prices are high because they have a big ego like Apple.

Intel only won an Apple account because the could offer a lower price and produce the quantity that apple needed to supply a growing macbook craze.

[RichardFanning]

Ha, silly fanboys. Yes there have been times where AMD had better price per performance margins but currently this is not the case at all. Take the recently launched AMD Quad FX. It runs hotter, uses more energy, costs more, and does not perform as well as the Core 2 Duo platform. AMD led the way with more efficient processors that used less energy and garnered performance from improvements in architecture rather than increases in clock speed. Intel adopted that mentality and is once again the performance leader with a better product. To say that you would swap an Intel Core series processor for a rival AMD chip that doesn't perform near as well and uses more energy is pure fanboy ignorance.

[bwhsh8r]

I have a horrible feeling that this thread is a breeding ground for a flamewar intel fanboys vs AMD fanboys.... argh....

[bptba93]

if you ask me, i'll go with whatever the hell is in them...look at my specs! tho i would prefer AMD

[RobNyc]

Well comparing my current pc I would get amd 64 x2 for free =) if i were to pay intel core duo 2 right now. We gotta give it time and see.

 

I hope if Apple release AMD notebook I hope it has a better gfx card than a x1600

[GBK.Xscape]

truly i dont really care becuase im not a fan of either one, if the chip runs and runs fast then i am happy that it works, amd or intel. im not to techy either and i dont really know if one is better than the other. i have never used amd but only intel so i guess i wouldnt really know.

[Colonel]

I was an Intel fan for a while, but I'm starting to lean towards AMD now. I dunno...

[joe75]

I'm starting to lean towards AMD now. I dunno...

 

The Conroes can't be touched by anything AMD but that doesn't change the quality, materials or manufacturing by AMD

[Zealot]

Intel has higher clock speed, but AMD has Better media quality and better instruction, not to mention the way better integrated chipsets (ATI)

 

it will be great for the consumer .It is always better to have options.

[joneSi]

I was an Intel fan for a while, but I'm starting to lean towards AMD now. I dunno...

 

The new C2D 6400 SMOKES. I use both AMD and Intel (but my AMD setups are always more involved) and I would kill for one of those right now. Since $ doesn't in fact grow on trees, I have done a final speed bump to my 939 board...Opteron 170. It comes in today.

 

joneSi

[RobNyc]

The Conroes can't be touched by anything AMD but that doesn't change the quality, materials or manufacturing by AMD

 

Yep and now with the release of Amd Quad Fx it still can't touch Intel.

AMd has a long way to go

[joe75]

AMd has a long way to go

 

I completely agree and I'm planing to build a nice Conroe rig soon, I just think people shouldn't be fooled by thinking Intel makes a better "quality" chip then AMD

[Benjw]

i've used intel all my life how is there a big or little difference

also could this be the new 12" macbook pro

[semthex]

Because of a lot of techical aspects I met in development about AMD I think it's impossible. No more than just a fake rumor.

The current work Apple does goes exactly in the opposite direction.

[bwhsh8r]

Because of a lot of techical aspects I met in development about AMD I think it's impossible. No more than just a fake rumor.

The current work Apple does goes exactly in the opposite direction.

 

 

But the thing is you have already done alot of the transition stuff, so they can just see what problems your work had and then fix those, or just straight up use some of your amd fixes... although they are removing amd necessary codes, and making everything hardware specific (Intel) probably to cut down piracy because the more picky the os is teh less hardware ittl go on, so at least theyd cut down on the piracy to (they hope) at least only apple knockoffs using the same hardware (witch is a minority...)

[RichardFanning]

I completely agree and I'm planing to build a nice Conroe rig soon, I just think people shouldn't be fooled by thinking Intel makes a better "quality" chip then AMD

 

How do you justify this statement? Currently the Intel manufacturing process is still far ahead of AMD. Intel currently manufactures on a 65nm process and has been since the debut of the Core series product line in early 2006. The current Intel roadmap plans to cross over from the 65nm process to a 45nm process in 2007 and already has plants that have been producing chips on the 45nm process (Intel Press Release). AMD current products are still based on the 90nm process and chips based on the 65nm process won't begin shipping until Q1 of 2007. (AMD Press Release). Currently the heat problems with the AMD line are due to the 90nm process and the adoption of the 65nm process will help to eliminate that. However, Intel still has the upper hand and is at least 6 months if not a year ahead of development of their technologies in regards to AMD with their move towards a 45nm process just as AMD is adopting the 65nm process. I'm not a fanboy, I use the best technology at the time of purchase. That being said, I used to work for a company that specialized in building white boxes. In fact when AMD began pushing products that beat the pants off Intel performance and price wise I pushed the company president into adopting AMD based machines alongside Intel boxes. It was a move that made perfect sense. As far as "quality" goes I never saw a chip from either company fail in the 5,000+ computers I built. So if it isn't a rate of failure we are basing quality on what are we basing quality on? At the time the company I was working for adopted AMD chips, both Intel and AMD were manufacturing on a 130nm process, so as technologies go they were on the same playing field. This is not the same today. Intel has a superior manufacturing process and therefore produces a more advanced product. If you aren't referencing a rate of failure for quality what are you referencing?