AMD and Apple - An inevitable union?

I suspect that EFI wont go anywhere soon, except in the Intel based server and Mac machines. There just isnt much point to going over to EFI, seeing as how Windows isnt going to support it.

EDIT: On the Apple website, Apple calls EFI an industry standard. Assuming they arent talking about the Mac industry, I dont see how it's standard at all, let alone an industry standard.

Actually I am going to say it. Apple will not use AMD.

 

At least not until AMD can offer what Intel offers Apple now.

 

Intel chipsets + Intel CPU's + Intel's EFI + TPM allow Apple the "hardware lock" they want (need?).

 

As we've seen with the newer kernel versions (that none of the hack boxes are using) Apple has gotten even further in bed with Intel at the kernel level.

 

Simply put, while AMD can offer a decent performance CPU to Apple right now, they cannot deliver the whole package that Apple requires at the moment.

 

Apple has no reason to look to AMD. It's not going to be a cost saver to them and in fact with the route they have taken would actually up their development costs.

 

and to br0adband above me.. that is the same reason I only use Intel as well. From end to end.

Hmmmm, I said Apple to x86 on madonion about 4 years ago....to say never is like saying Apple will never go intel. So you can not say that!

I also read that windows will indeed look at EFI again.

Well, unless Windows Vista contains EFI support, EFI is basicly dead.

I would agree on some support to be on the AMD System's but it might only come to a point when AMD switches to EFI based board's... INTEL is not so bad its just worse to see FBDIMM merging to the market this year and dying by 2008 due to INTEL pullout support for it...

It would be a shame that the ppl promoting the FBDIMM systems and they are the one's whose killing the technology, it would be the same as RDRAM last time...

To me using RDRAM is suffice enough for a system to be fast and efficient... Look at PS2 it's still a hot selling item worldwide and its only using a mere 32MB + 300mhz CPU @3.2GB per sec & 147Mhz GPU+4MB RAM @ 48GB per sec...

Its about optimizing the hardware with the software not just upgrading to be fast...

For me i'd like to have a system with less hassle of upgrading CPU+Mainboard at the same time, i dont think the practicality is there to spend on both item at once...

I think the real question here is whether or not a company will decide to use a processor thats seemingly only sold in budget systems (ie. eMachines, etc) and putting them in computers that retail for well over the cost of a good notebook or desktop? Doubtful because AMD has been used mainly in the low-end retail systems, a move to put AMD's in the expensive Mac systems would be quite a shock to everyone, and would hurt the companies reputation in a lot of consumers eyes I'm sure.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I am going to say it. Apple will not use AMD.

 

At least not until AMD can offer what Intel offers Apple now.

 

Intel chipsets + Intel CPU's + Intel's EFI + TPM allow Apple the "hardware lock" they want (need?).

 

As we've seen with the newer kernel versions (that none of the hack boxes are using) Apple has gotten even further in bed with Intel at the kernel level.

 

Simply put, while AMD can offer a decent performance CPU to Apple right now, they cannot deliver the whole package that Apple requires at the moment.

 

Apple has no reason to look to AMD. It's not going to be a cost saver to them and in fact with the route they have taken would actually up their development costs.

 

and to br0adband above me.. that is the same reason I only use Intel as well. From end to end.

You forgot the "Big Three" mantra that made Apple switch in the first place: faster, smaller, cooler.

Let me be the first to say the inevitable...

 

APPLE WILL NEVER SWITCH TO AMD CHIPS!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now that that's out of our systems, I think the CEO of AMD is absolutely right.

I do agree. Apple will be only powered by Intel CPUs: its OS can unleash the full potential of new Core2Duo processors...

I was actually being sarcastic.

Where did you fix these computers? I worked for 3 years in a school district that was Intel on about 1500 computers and AMD on about 500. Now, I realize there were 3x the intel systems, but the AMD's NEVER had problems. Intel's had more problems than i could count. First off, we had over 100 Dell Optiplex system's with Intel mobo's die in a 3 MONTH SPAN. And other problems were related usualy to motherboard problems, or the fact that they overheat because intel doesnt know how to cool, at all. Granted AMD isnt any better, AMD's seem to have a way higher heat tolerence level.

 

So my friend, from the stand point of someone in IT/Systems Management, Intel stuff blows, plain and simple.

I've got 30+ years of experience in this "industry" and Intel owns it, plain and simple. AMD has a chunk of it, but they'll never do much better than they're currently doing.

I have no issues with AMD hardware, none whatsoever. They make great processors, they made great chipsets in the past, and the cost to performance is amazing. But the supporting hardware from VIA/SiS/Nvidia/ATI/etc just sucks, plain and simple.

And, my friend, that's from the standpoint of someone that was in IT/Systems Management decades before they ever thought to name them "IT" or "Systems Management."

It's Intel ftw, always.

bb

But the supporting hardware from VIA/SiS/Nvidia/ATI/etc just sucks, plain and simple.

 

And, my friend, that's from the standpoint of someone that was in IT/Systems Management decades before they ever thought to name them "IT" or "Systems Management."

 

It's Intel ftw, always.

 

 

bb

I will go with you 100% on VIA and SiS chipsets being garbage. What chipset do you think Apple would use if they ever went to AMD?

But its strange that every motherboard that died had the intel chipset on it. Oh well, im sure Apple would use a custom chipset only avalible to their company.

If INTEL is so good at CPU's why is this (details of EM64T from wikipedia) :-

During much of AMD's history, they have produced processors patterned after Intel's, but, in an ironic twist of computing history, AMD64 has been adopted (under the name EM64T or IA-32e) by Intel — the original creators of the x86 processor line—in newer versions of its Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition, Celeron D, and Xeon processors, and in its Core 2 processors.

Difference between AMD64 and EM64T :-

Current Differences

* EM64T's BSF and BSR instructions act differently when the source is 0 and the operand size is 32 bits. The processor sets the zero flag and leaves the upper 32 bits of the destination undefined.

* AMD64 supports 3DNow! instructions. This includes prefetch with the opcode 0x0F 0x0D and PREFETCHW, which are useful for hiding memory latency.

* EM64T lacks the ability to save and restore a reduced (and thus faster) version of the floating-point state (involving the FXSAVE and FXRSTOR instructions).

* EM64T lacks some model-specific registers that are considered architectural to AMD64. These include SYSCFG, TOP_MEM, and TOP_MEM2.

* EM64T supports microcode update as in 32-bit mode, although it has been rumored that AMD processors have supported programmable microcode (an undocumented feature) for years.

* EM64T's CPUID instruction is very vendor-specific, as is normal for x86-style processors.

* EM64T supports the MONITOR and MWAIT instructions, used by operating systems to better deal with Hyper-threading.

* AMD64 systems allow the use of the AGP aperture as an IO-MMU. Operating systems can take advantage of this to let normal PCI devices DMA to memory above 4 GB. EM64T systems require the use of bounce buffers, which are slower.

* SYSCALL and SYSRET are also only supported in IA-32e mode (not in compatibility mode) on EM64T. SYSENTER and SYSEXIT are supported in both modes.

* Near branches with the 0x66 (operand size) prefix behave differently. One type of CPU clears only the top 32 bits, while the other type clears the top 48 bits.

I will go with you 100% on VIA and SiS chipsets being garbage. What chipset do you think Apple would use if they ever went to AMD?

sorry if i walk between you two..

but why not using ATI chipset? (somehow they will made it less buggy next year). AMD-ATI, one company, more like intel.. right ?

maybe eventually down the line, but not anytime soon. intel has the C2D and will be the first with quad core chips, can't see apple moving away from that. just imagine in a few years when minis get C2Q...

But its strange that every motherboard that died had the intel chipset on it. Oh well, im sure Apple would use a custom chipset only avalible to their company.

Chances are it was an issue with bad capacitors.

maybe eventually down the line, but not anytime soon. intel has the C2D and will be the first with quad core chips, can't see apple moving away from that. just imagine in a few years when minis get C2Q...

Exactly, only intel suks at GPU, and now AMD has a chipset, no more VIA, SIS, 4and1 drivers and fwiw, the server chipsets made by AMD were pretty great. I think in time, AMD combined with ATI now places them at further along the road and remember, while intel has their dual core, .65, AMD has yet to get to .65 at large scale.

I think Apple is great for art/music/video, but are still somewhat limited in plugins that you can use (vs PC) but I think Vista may bomb......on the other hand, AMD has always until the duo core 2, had the best RAW performance, as in RENDERING, so I think they will get that advantage again.

Then what happens if Apple does, as some rumor, release MAC programs to the PC world and people start using FINAL CUT, LOGIC, Pages, etc on AMD machines becuase they are faster?

I think its just a matter of time, in fact, AMD would be best to team up with Apple in another few years..

:-)

AMD/APPLE/ATI vs INTEL

LOL

AMD will release its 65nm dual cores in December and 65nm quad cores in January or February. AMD’s new chip design will allow more than 8 CPUs on one motherboard with only one logic chip. AMD also has designs for 2x4 and 4x4 AM2 motherboards to be released in early 2007. Apple and AMD are both leading edge underdogs, so why wouldn’t they hook-up? Besides, Apple is already dealing with AMD thru ATI. Macbooks are currently using ATI graphics (and possibly ATI chipsets) and ATI video cards are options on the Macpro boxes. If you check, most new notebooks, both Intel and AMD are using ATI chipsets and graphics. How many people use Intel graphics? If Intel owned ATI, they would tell Apple if they wanted ATI they would have to use Intel CPUs. AMD figures if Apple uses ATI chips its just more market share for them! I think if Apple wants to continue to be leading edge they can’t help but use at least some AMD CPUs in the future.

Check out “Alfred E. Gates" at: http://www.thisoldride.com/index3.html

How about AMD buying Power CPU from IBM, tweeks it and makes Octa core 128bit processor running at 4Ghz per core, for laptops

Yeah the only problem with AMD machines is the lack of kick ass chipset....... and lack of cheap quality mobo. Sometimes it costs the earth to buy Asus mobo + a GPU card.

Yeah but there won't be a big transition but there will still be one... The current osx86 kernels are optimised for the Intel Core Duos / Core 2 Duos... There would also need to modifiy drivers....

 

This shouldn't take much time to do... But you can't just say that it would be hasel free.

 

Retroz, What you are saying makes will happen at some point... The real question is when and I see no reason for Apple to switch anytime soon.

Some small drivers would have to be added, and then the system would run just as well on

Intel or AMD.

As for the devices (keyboard, mouse, netowrking, wireless, everything else) the drivers would be exactly the same.