Will Apple leave ATI for nVidia?

Will Intel allow Apple to continue to working with ATI on graphics after the company becomes wholly owned by rival AMD? I think that we'll probably see Intel gently "suggest" that Apple switch to another vendor for graphics technology in 2007.

 

 

*************************************************************************

I just put this up as a practice article before I start posting for InsanelyMac. Please let me know what you think. Thanks

Why would Intel have a say in what Graphics Cards Apple decide to build their systems with?

Oh, and the article is pretty good! There are a few grammatical errors, but other than that,

Thanks you guys. I've decided to go with Firefox 2.0 from now on when I post so that I can catch those spelling errors.

I'm glad you like it.

Maybe... maybe this could lead to an good offer from AMD for a more integrated ATI + AMD chipset including the graphics. Meaning that apple would switch from intel to AMD, but then again it depends on what kind of availability amd is able to make.

Apple should also be careful of not being to dependant on intel.

I just don't see this, at all. Why would AMD lose business. They could delveop a new ATI chip and make the new Macs even more powerful in video editing etc. . I think alot of people think that since AMD bought ATI that AMD will just pull away from Apple. WHY? ATI DOESN'T WANT Nvidia to get a foothold on the Apple business so they will most likely ask Apple for exclusive rights to Macs or make superior ATI chips with the AMD technology. Not flaming or bashing the article, good article , but I don't see AMD shooting themselves in the foot.

I don't see it either. I also don't see AMD/ATI making an ultimatum with Apple for "USe AMD chips or else," as Apple will most likely say "Bye ATI, hello NVidia."

Exactly. What AMD will do is for ALL ATI chips is to add their technology to them and make better gpu's. They will keep the deal with Apple and maybe

"sweaten" the deal and add special enchancements to the Apple ATI chipsets, maybe not. But they could try to get AMD as an option in the Intel Macs.

EDIT: Something in the FAQ from the site: The new company will be called just AMD. So the term ATI will no long be around for newer cards. So in reality you will have Mac with Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's. Funny.

But they could try to get AMD as an option in the Intel Macs.

Part of Apple's alliance with Intel is that Intel does the bulk of the design of the motherboard and all of the manufacturing of the motherboard. If Apple tries to incorporate AMD CPU's, they will have to transfer the motherboard work elsewhere - either back home or with a 3rd vendor.

Likewise, Intel will pressure Apple to use their onboard video for motherboards for iMac's, MacBooks and mini's. The desktops will have slots so Apple can plug in any vendor's graphics board they choose and Nvidia can compete in the aftermarket.

Definitely an interesting thought, but you also have to take a closer look at the move Intel is making. Intel is simply pulling ATI's license to manufacture Northbridge and Southbridge chipsets for the Intel platform. Intel had originally partnered with ATI to address a chipset shortage issue Intel was having with its low-end motherboards. Intel has severed this alliance now that AMD is poised to buy ATI, as it creates a direct conflict of interest between the two companies.

Apple choosing to use ATI over NVIDA does not create a direct conflict of interest. If it did, then how is it that Dell, HP, and Sony don't find themselves in the same boat?

Something to keep in mind is, Steve Job's doesn’t get strong armed, he does the strong arming. Did he bow to the record companies demand to increase the cost of music downloads at the iTunes Music Store? No. Did he bow to Disney execs. after Toy Story's success at the box office? No. Now why would he bow to Intel? He does have alternatives, and I would not be surprised to find out Apple has been running AMD in the OS X lab, 'cause as we all know performance is King.

At this point in the PPC to Intel transition, I think Apple is more concerned with performance than any relationship a graphics/chipset company has with Intel. Steve Jobs wants Apple to be on top of Performance Mountain, and if that means having the fastest video card from ATI, then that will mean we will continue to see ATI GPU's in our Mac's.

No Worries!

Can I be part of the NEWS staff too? -LOL

Great first post, colonels!

I just don't see this, at all. Why would AMD lose business. They could delveop a new ATI chip and make the new Macs even more powerful in video editing etc. . I think alot of people think that since AMD bought ATI that AMD will just pull away from Apple. WHY? ATI DOESN'T WANT Nvidia to get a foothold on the Apple business so they will most likely ask Apple for exclusive rights to Macs or make superior ATI chips with the AMD technology. Not flaming or bashing the article, good article , but I don't see AMD shooting themselves in the foot.

Good point especially since AMD's memory controller is still superior to intels.

One way to look at it is this..rather two;

OEM's prefer on-board GPU, cheaper, keep cost's down, offer PCIe for upgradable GPU while offering latest CPU. ATI is far superior to Intel, so much for intels new on-board GPU rumored to come out Q3.

Intel in addition to making CPU's also makes chipsets and so does AMD for their Opteron boards.

Now they have teamed up with a great GPU company and with one swoosh are now in the chipset biz and ATi gets to use their (AMD) fabs (cleanroom, and access to technology).

Remember, x86 is binary, so Apple can do what they want, I forsee great low heat CPU's as well as superior editing engines coming out for GPU's now. Since there are dual/quad core, why not expect the same for GPU''s. It's all good. Also, being in the Post Production field, the present CHIPSET that worked best and still does for AMD CPU's are the NVIDIA NFORCE 3 AGP chipsets. Google audio AMD nvidia and you will see.

The nforce 4 and PCIexpress caused a lot of headaches, pops, glitches, etc, so perhaps AMD is forward thinking in a big way, in addition, Apple being savvy as they are, I would not be surprised one bit if Apple went AMD and used intel for their R&D, although AMD has to contend with the duo core and for the most part have come right back with something just as good.

A story to back up something I just said... in my previos post!

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/28/amds_response_to_conroe/

I belive part of the AMD ATi deal was so amd may have a small chance in the mac processor market.

Intel is a highly competetive corporation, with several sleazy buisness practices against the other chip vendors (skype antitrust).

In the end i hope apple decides not to put intel GMA in their desktops.

(skype antitrust).

In the end i hope apple decides not to put intel GMA in their desktops.

1. Skype antitrust lawsuit is actually INTEL's lawsuit, not Skype's from what I've read. This kind of thing would be akin to someone suing Adobe for Altivec optimization if AMD were to actually sue Skype.

2. Intel GMA's are already in desktops with the Mac mini and one flavor of iMac. Chances are, GMA's won't make it into the G5 replacement, as they are meant for power users who need powerful, replaceable graphics cards.

A note. Skype explicitely wrote limitations to detect intel processors into their software. (Maxxus' patch addresses that issue by nullifying that limitation, thus giving full capability on AMD processors). This isnt an "optimized for" scenario, or a "uses an Intel-exclusive media extension like OS X" scenario. This is potentionally a situation of Tying. And that's a crime (and a tort) under US antitrust laws. Though I think Skype might not be a US company, so I dont know exactly how that would pan out.

That's my take anyways.

EDIT: I should rephrase one thing. I dont mean to imply that Skype has potentially commited a crime or a tort and Intel hasnt. They both have equal and non-exclusive potential to be named in a lawsuit. Intel and Skype entered into a (potentially) illegal deal to lockout functionality on the AMD processor. AMD is suing Intel (Intel is AMD's rival), but AMD could also sue Skype.

Great article, colonels. if amd utilizes hAVing control of both the procssor and the graphics card and improves performance, then we will see apple swithc to amd/ati. also, i se a possibility of apple switching to amd processors announced at WWDC 06. anything is possible right now.

FiringSquad: What will ATI do to maintain their strong relationship with Apple?

 

Chris Evenden: I don’t see how the announcement would affect our relationship with Apple.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_merger/

i like it and agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. but i hope apple still keeps ATI chips in there laptops and some of the macs pros. but as with anything we wont no intill the dust settles.

i like it and agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. but i hope apple still keeps ATI chips in there laptops and some of the macs pros. but as with anything we wont no intill the dust settles.

Plus ATI will have access to .65 and .45 nano technology and will be cheaper to produce. This puts the pinch on INTEL performance as well as price structure vs Nvidia.

Chips (GPU) are going to get cooler as well.

Can't say more than this but I can tell you AMD has a quad CPU that needs no fan or heat sink and is cool to the touch, as in 60/55 F when on. shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

A note. Skype explicitely wrote limitations to detect intel processors into their software. (Maxxus' patch addresses that issue by nullifying that limitation, thus giving full capability on AMD processors). This isnt an "optimized for" scenario, or a "uses an Intel-exclusive media extension like OS X" scenario. This is potentionally a situation of Tying. And that's a crime (and a tort) under US antitrust laws. Though I think Skype might not be a US company, so I dont know exactly how that would pan out.

Actually, a court would view tis as a perfectly legal contract between two parties. Also, the court would look and say that AMD isn't completely disabled by such an agreement and then tell AMD to shut up.

Nice first news submission, Colonels! You really did your homework on this one. One little problem:

I don't think Apple will wait till August 2007 to release the Mac Pro.

(you meant after WWDC 2006, right)

Whoops. Thanks for catching that one, Takuro.

Actually, a court would view tis as a perfectly legal contract between two parties. Also, the court would look and say that AMD isn't completely disabled by such an agreement and then tell AMD to shut up.

Umm.... AMD threatened Skype because of this, Skype denied that they had done it and that it was not because they had intentionally made the Intel CPU's have the advantage but because AMD cpus couldnt do it, Maxxuss released a patch to fix this and evidence that they did intentionally give Intel favor and that AMD could do it too, AMD subpoena theyre ass, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/02/amd_subpoenas_skype/ http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/01/2034217 or you could just google it.... and it would pop up with a bunch of links..... yea, and they are German based, but they can still get a lawsuit and antitrust, but AMD is looking for Intel involvement (obveously they were involved because why else would some one descriminate against theyre competetor?)

max

I still ask how is it discrimination when it still works under AMD? It's like saying Adobe should be sued because they optimized Photoshop for the G4 (which meant G3 users would be treated to sup-par performance).

I still ask how is it discrimination when it still works under AMD? It's like saying Adobe should be sued because they optimized Photoshop for the G4 (which meant G3 users would be treated to sup-par performance).

I may have worded my post wrong... its not discrimintaion, but its not teh same as what you sayed, because they do not INTENTIONALLY impair the performance of photoshop for g3 computers.... thats what Skype did, and also, it could be considered with the anti trust because Intel might have.... motivated skype in a way that would not be considered legal.... Skype intentionally added a line of code to check for the Intel procs, and if you didnt have one you are treated to a less useable Skype.... thats like photoshop disabling half of its features because you do not have a g4, instead of it being limited because of the hardware not being able to handle it....

im glad that we can discuss this in a civil, educated manner instead of a useless flame war, i thank you for that

max

the skype thing: I know for a fact that skype claims its for enhancements "only availble on intel" -- but what they dont tell you is they have access to those types of enhancements because of their deal with intel... so its sort of a two-sided thing... half-illegal.

and as for AMD/ATI chips no longer being in apples: there will be no reason someone can't build a motherboard with an intel processor and an ATI graphics card even after AMD buys them... and I dont see apple switching to AMD anytime soon.

a more likely scenario is apple becoming more like generic PCs and having both AMD and intel processors in their lines of PCs... though thats not very likely either.