Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Feb 3, 2006, 02:54 PM

If not why? Do you think they have some sort of exclusive contract with Intel or do they really think Intel makes better chips? Perhaps they are also not trying to confuse their customers more than they already are.

olePigeon · Feb 3, 2006, 03:04 PM

Different chipsets means different drivers. I think they're trying to keep it simple. I'm going to say No, but not No way in hell. I reserved that statement for the switch to Intel, but it happened.

jasonsRX7 · Feb 3, 2006, 03:04 PM

I'm guessing that Apple is just using Intel and their resources to help with the transition. Once everything is ported and running smoothly on x86 for a couple of years, they could start using AMD. Assuming, of course, that AMD is still making better processors by that time.

JoshKurtz · Feb 3, 2006, 03:09 PM

I think it depends on what AMD has to offer in a few years. I think that they'll stick with Intel for awhile though.

Chuckit · Feb 3, 2006, 03:16 PM

The question isn't why Apple wouldn't use AMD chips. It's why they would. Thus far, they have said Intel's roadmap is appealing to them. Where's the motivation for going to AMD?

Kerrigan · Feb 3, 2006, 03:19 PM

Apple is probably going wait until he transition to intel is almost complete, and then when people start feeling satisfied with the stability of the platform, Apple will switch again.

Chuckit · Feb 3, 2006, 03:26 PM

Yeah, but AMD wouldn't be surprising enough. They'll go back to Moto.

jasonsRX7 · Feb 3, 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Where's the motivation for going to AMD?

The motivation would be performance, but that is based on what is available today. Intel could become the performance leader again in the future. If AMD continued to outperform Intel, and if AMD improved their laptop offerings, I could certainly see Apple using them in a few years.

One of the problems I see with AMD right now is that they rely too heavily on 3rd party chipset support. Via and Nvidia shouldn't be AMD's primary platform... AMD should be.

jcadam · Feb 3, 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Apple is probably going wait until he transition to intel is almost complete, and then when people start feeling satisfied with the stability of the platform, Apple will switch again.

We should start a pool -- "When will Apple switch processor families again, and to what?"
My money is on a switch to SPARC in 2011.

vmarks · Feb 3, 2006, 04:07 PM

There are two reasons Intel was chosen:

Efforts towards better performance at lower clock speed (meaning low power and low heat for laptops)

Supply and yield not a problem (bitten by this from both Motorola G4 and IBM G5 (no iMac in time for edu sales, no G5 laptop chip)

Even if AMD can match the first reason, Intel exceeds them greatly for the second.

Yes, Apple could use AMD anytime they pleased. Would they? See reasons 1 and 2.

mduell · Feb 3, 2006, 04:44 PM

AMD64 does great in the workstation/server space, but it's sorely lacking in the mobile space.
If AMD produces a better low power (laptop and slim desktop) chip than Intel, I could see Apple using AMD.
Remember, for Apple and the industry as a whole, over half of computer unit sales (and revenue sales) are laptops.

Kevin · Feb 3, 2006, 04:45 PM

Everyone should have honestly choose the last one.

Chuckit · Feb 3, 2006, 04:49 PM

What's the point of having an option for "I'm not going to answer the question"?

Eug Wanker · Feb 3, 2006, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

There are two reasons Intel was chosen:

Efforts towards better performance at lower clock speed (meaning low power and low heat for laptops)

Supply and yield not a problem (bitten by this from both Motorola G4 and IBM G5 (no iMac in time for edu sales, no G5 laptop chip)

3. Compilers

4. Chipsets and related stuff.

Salty · Feb 3, 2006, 06:40 PM

I imagine in the future once everything is settled down, they'll start announcing products using both chips if AMD offers any sort of advantage.

turbopants · Feb 3, 2006, 07:54 PM

As long as it wasn't a big deal to recompile applications for the AMD chips, Apple would have a nice ace in the hole if Intel were to mess up badly. Realistically though, its a few years away from an AMD switch.

wdlove · Feb 3, 2006, 09:33 PM

I don't know, but would never say never.

jasonsRX7 · Feb 3, 2006, 09:44 PM

The word 'never' appears 9 times in the post above mine

ironknee · Feb 3, 2006, 10:53 PM

yes of course!

apple had dome everything they said they would never...ppc->intel, video ipod, working with ibm on ppc, etc

Salty · Feb 3, 2006, 11:10 PM

Also keep in mind AMD was probably one of the reasons Apple went with Intel. If Intel screws them over for any reason they have AMD.

Lateralus · Feb 3, 2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by jcadam

My money is on a switch to SPARC in 2011.

*Prays for sooner*

Mmmm... UltraSPARC T1 Mac...

Salty · Feb 4, 2006, 02:38 PM

cause we all know Sun is doing so well...

Tesseract · Feb 4, 2006, 02:54 PM

Right now Intel has the better laptop/low-power processors, hence Apple's current focus on Intel. Also, Intel had better resources to aid in the transition (motherboard/chipset design, EFI, etc.) and name recognition.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Opterons in the Xserve in a few years, though. (Assuming they are still better than the Intel server offerings.)

Lateralus · Feb 4, 2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

cause we all know Sun is doing so well...

Sun is doing very well and SPARC is an open architecture that is used by a number of companies.