×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

197 comments

AC originally planned for a massive shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38117894)

rather then at the frosty piss that emerged.

Re:AC originally planned for a massive shit (0, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118194)

AC originally planned for a massive shit rather then at the frosty piss that emerged.

I can confirm that this is so.

You forgot the link. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38117928)

NT

In summary (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38117956)

The AMD chips had a significantly better GPU, at the cost of a slightly slower CPU (which is a good tradeoff). Apple didn't go with it because AMD couldn't guarantee the volumes that Apple needed.

And this is essentially the story of AMD for the last decade.

CPU & GPU performance not relevant (5, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118068)

The AMD chips had a significantly better GPU, at the cost of a slightly slower CPU (which is a good tradeoff).

In the context of something like a MacBook Air power consumption is a far greater factor than CPU or GPU performance.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118268)

In the context of something like a MacBook Air power consumption is a far greater factor than CPU or GPU performance.

I'm not sure why you think this, if they were looking for power consumption, wouldn't they go with the Atom?

I can tell you at least anecdotally, the last time I was looking at a laptop I really wanted something like an Air because of its nice slender shape, but I decided against it because it is underpowered compared to most other laptops I was considering, and I am ok with a shorter battery life.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (4, Insightful)

allanw (842185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118434)

Atoms are friggin slow compared to a regular CPU and should only be used for sub-$400 netbooks, not $1000 laptops. One of the great things about the Air is that it doesn't use some dumbed down CPU, it's just a regular Sandy Bridge clocked down.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (0)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118516)

Atoms are friggin slow compared to a regular CPU and should only be used for sub-$400 netbooks, not $1000 laptops.

But the earlier poster said "power consumption is a far greater factor than CPU or GPU performance."

Which is clearly false, or Apple would have put an Atom in the box.

In any case, since the closest Apple equivalent to my $1100 laptop was a $2500 laptop, I'd guess that a $1000 Apple laptop is pretty much equivalent to a $400 Windows laptop.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (5, Informative)

allanw (842185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118590)

Obviously power consumption is important but performance is also very important. An Atom is an extremely cheap CPU that doesn't deserve to go in a $1000 laptop, like I said. Otherwise you can take the argument to silliness by asking why Apple didn't go with ARM or something.

I've found that Macbooks are pretty comparable in price to a Windows laptop now, at least the Airs (since we're on that topic). Nothing out there matches a Macbook Air in price, considering that the Air comes with an SSD and a Sandy Bridge CPU.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38119254)

My HP dm1z plays Portal 2, BioShock, Half-Life 2 episodes, and everything else. Beat that, MacBook Air. Oh, and it cost 400$.

How does it do that? AMD E-350 APU. Maybe it is little better than an Atom and the radeon cores are bolted on through PCI-E, but it's pretty damn capable. With a TDP of 18W.

You want a netbook with modern graphics? There's only one game in town. At least until the ARM netbooks with nVidia graphics come along...

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (2)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38119350)

The trouble with Atom is its really not powerful enough for anything but what GP said... netbooks, web, light word processing. Yes, its very low power, but AMD is in its ball park power-wise, and AMD completely spanks the Atom in processing power. I realize Atom has a huge following, and so does Intel in general, due to their chip fabs being the best, even if they couldn't produce a viable GPU to save their lives. Trouble is the Atom is actually equivalent in processing power to a PowerPC G4 ... so for Apple to sell a NEW computer with an Atom, it would be like it was 2003 again.

IMHO, when AMD studdered on the question of supply, Apple should have just bought them outright.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38119506)

amd stuttered on the reply because they sold their chip fabs about 2 yrs ago, the spun it off as an independent division. They no longer get the same amount of scheduled manufacture time, they can no longer dictate how the fabs will operate. Apple would gain little by buying amd as it is essentially a chip design firm who buys their fab time from 3rd parties. Apple would gain just as much from licensing amd a
s from buying it.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38119470)

In any case, since the closest Apple equivalent to my $1100 laptop was a $2500 laptop, I'd guess that a $1000 Apple laptop is pretty much equivalent to a $400 Windows laptop.

I don't even have to ask you what machine you're talking about to know that both of those statements are false, unless you're using absurd properties for "closest equivalent".

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38119302)

The Atom CPU is a joke, it's literately something Intel pulled out of it's Ass when the netbook fad started. It's an unfortunate fuckup that made all the sleezy sellers build craptops with them, and then earned the wrath of not selling the things or high returns when customers found out that they don't run anything current and can only run 5 year old software. OOPS

If anything the Atom was a nice excuse for Apple to make the iPad or even the iPhone (the iPhone came out 8 months before the eeePC) in a way that would never run desktop software. It's such a terrible experience to use a netbook, but not an iPad.

Anyway I think we've all learned our lessons now.
1. If it looks like a computer, it has to be a computer. (eg run everything new that's on the shelf)
2. If it doesn't look like a computer, it doesn't have to be a computer. (it only has to run software in it's own ecosystem -- the app store.)

Intel's craptacular onboard video solutions is ultimately what sunk the netbook platform. They're only getting away with it in the MacBook Air because the performance is equivalent to the bottom-most chip in the current generation of video chips, where as in 2007 the video chip was barely different from a 10 year old one.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (2)

Teknikal69 (1769274) | about 2 years ago | (#38119516)

I think I might be one of the few that actually likes the Atom I have a netbook I actually use for tons of stuff and the Atom gives me over a ten hour battery. I basicly use the netbook for everything I would do on my desktop and it works fine I've even watched 720p videos on it.

I think the early Atoms might have been poor and that's how they got the bad rep but the one in my netbook seems to be pretty good to me and I really like the battery life.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118994)

Yes, but power consumption can be a tricky thing. If enough can be off-loaded to a GPU that is more efficient it can come out better in the end. That's basically been Apple's strategy with the iPhones and iPads. An OK processor coupled with a GPU that that been customized to fit the device and software customized to get the most out of the hardware.

Re:CPU & GPU performance not relevant (4, Interesting)

Theovon (109752) | more than 2 years ago | (#38119104)

People tend to conflate power with energy, and you may be doing it here. If you're going to be executing a particular job, and you want to optmize its efficiency, then it will consume some power over some time period, which is ENERGY. On the other hand, if you're talking about the battery life of your laptop, then the computer is almost completely idle, and what we want to therefore minimize is idle and average power.

Optimizing just for power isn't sufficient. If something uses half the power but takes 4 times as long, then it's twice as bad. However, we don't typically wake our computers to run compute-intensive jobs, just to put them back to sleep when those are done. We do a lot of screen-staring, which complicates the issue.

Interestingly, performance per watt IS in the right units. Performance would be something comparable to operations per second, while watts is joules per second. The seconds cancel out, giving you operations per joule, which is the correct efficiency metric.

Repeating history (2)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118102)

It was also the story of Motorola back in the early Eighties, when IBM was developing that first Personal Computer: the story I always heard was that IBM chose the Intel line over Motorola's more capable 68K series simply because Intel had secondary sourcing and could guarantee volume, but Motorola was the sole source and couldn't.

Re:Repeating history (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118316)

Intel's second source for 386, 486, etc... AMD

Re:Repeating history (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118488)

I think there was yet another source as well, but I have no memory for detail and no time to Google the blanks.

Re:Repeating history (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118646)

It was a bit later, but NEC produced the V20 and V30, very worthy competitors to the early Intel x86 CPUs.

Re:Repeating history (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118674)

I know! We used to overclock them in some systems by swapping the clock crystals. :-)

Re:Repeating history (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118382)

It was also the story of Motorola back in the early Eighties, when IBM was developing that first Personal Computer: the story I always heard was that IBM chose the Intel line over Motorola's more capable 68K series simply because Intel had secondary sourcing and could guarantee volume, but Motorola was the sole source and couldn't.

Actually, I think Moto was just talking about the 68k but hadn't yet managed to ship.

Re:Repeating history (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118554)

Was the 8088 in use elsewhere before IBM picked it up? I wonder if perhaps both of them weren't quite shipping when IBM made the decision? Got a published timeline from a mag or site article?

Re:Repeating history (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118638)

Nope, no published timeline, just my ancient memories ;-) I think the gap in shipping was only a few months, but IBM was in a severe rush to get a product released in order to prevent other micros from continuing to establish a foothold in business use.

Re:Repeating history (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38119458)

I don't have a source but I'm pretty sure it was. The reason that IBM chose the components that it did for their computers was largely because they could be put into a workable computer quickly. It's also why the competition was able to create clones so quickly pretty much all the parts were off the shelf.

Re:Repeating history (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38119090)

Are you sure it wasn't because the MC68000 was insanely expensive when compared to the Intel part that IBM eventually chose? The Motorola part was a much more capable bit of tech and it was priced accordingly.

Volume and secondary sources were likely relatively minor concerns.

Re:Repeating history (1)

warrigal (780670) | about 2 years ago | (#38119378)

That may have contributed but the main reason was that the PC team had only a year to bring the product to market. They preferred the 32-bit 68000 over the 16-bit 80XX but Motorola's design and dev tools were far inferior to Intel's and the engineers had much more experience working with Intel chips in IBM's Vendor Technology Logic-based products. So, in their rush to market, the team saddled us with all that Expanded/Extended Memory stuff as well as other sins.

Re:Repeating history (1)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#38119434)

... saddled us with all that Expanded/Extended Memory stuff as well as other sins.

Yeah, I was thinking of that specifically when I compared the two. Were it not for IBM's choice, though, one of the companies that once employed me, Quarterdeck, might never have even existed. Well, at least its first product never would have.

Re:In summary (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118372)

It is slightly more specific than that, in this case:

Apple continued to ship Core2s in their smaller systems for a surprising length of time after the newer intel gear became available because that was the only way they could continue to get Nvidia GPUs in anything too small for a discrete graphics card, and they were just that unimpressed with intel's offering.

Given that, it seems likely that AMD must have had real, serious, dealbreaker, volume issues with their APU parts(not just 'we need our Intel marketing support money' volume issues) for Apple to have dropped that plan.

It would be interesting to know if AMD just can't ship them in quantity at all(which seems modestly unlikely, given the number of cheapie PC laptops where they've popped up, and the fairly low prices they must be selling for), or if Apple required some fancy low voltage bin that AMD's process just didn't hit regularly enough...

Re:In summary (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118396)

If you knew the answer to this, it could make all the difference in whether you should buy AMD stock or short it.

Re:In summary (1)

bingbangboom (2457958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118648)

AMD probably had enough initial APU's for Apple's demand *OR* the rest of the OEM's but not both. If AMD went with Apple, their APU's would only be in Apple products until yields improve.

Re:In summary (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38119044)

Which Apple would've been just fine with...

So.. you're saying that AMD backed out, rather than Apple choosing?

Re:In summary (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118754)

It would be interesting to know if AMD just can't ship them in quantity at all(which seems modestly unlikely, given the number of cheapie PC laptops where they've popped up, and the fairly low prices they must be selling for), or if Apple required some fancy low voltage bin that AMD's process just didn't hit regularly enough...

Well considering that Apple is selling about 3M laptops a quarter, they were probably projecting at least 1M per quarter if not more. Unlike their other suppliers, Apple could not help AMD expand their manufacturing by fronting them capital funds. That kind of expansion would take years which would be the limiting factor.

Re:In summary (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118662)

On the other hand for what Apple's paying for Intel chips Apple could just buy AMD and fix their supply chain problems. AMD could be had for about $5 billion today. Apple's moving about 16 million Macs a year. It wouldn't take too long for that to pay off. And 64-core Mac desktops would be pretty neat.

Re:In summary (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38119462)

I honestly don't know why this hasn't happened... Intel must be dumping mountains of cash on Apple to make this idea look unattractive.

Not Sure This is Newsworthy (1, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38117972)

I guess I'm just not sure why people are writing articles about this. Apple of course has prototypes with various chipsets. I find it interesting that they likely bailed on AMD because they were not up to the volume requirements, but that's not news so much as a market assessment people in the computer supply chain logistics business probably already knew.

Re:Not Sure This is Newsworthy (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118222)

You don't know why people write articles that you admit you find interesting?

You judge Slashdot articles on whether computer supply chain logistics readers already know the stories?

Have another bottle of beer.

Re:Not Sure This is Newsworthy (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38119060)

You don't know why people write articles that you admit you find interesting?

I find one speculation in the article interesting, the rest is just remarking on the obvious. I also find it interesting that Isaac Newton stuck a leather awl into his eye, but that doesn't mean it is news.

You judge Slashdot articles on whether computer supply chain logistics readers already know the stories?

I judge articles based on if they present useful information and I judge news articles based upon their presenting non-obvious facts about current events. This provided obvious statements about current events and speculation about a very specific topic that was interesting... but which it had no real evidence for.

Have another bottle of beer.

Done and done.

Re:Not Sure This is Newsworthy (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118398)

The "story", in this case, is not that 'Apple had a prototype' but the claim that AMD was Plan A and that the intel Air shipped for volume reasons.

It's been a while since AMD was plan A for a thin-n-light laptop design...

wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38117992)

I wish Apple had gone with AMD processors from the beginning. Maybe then AMD would not have a mobile platform practically dead in the water. Try this: find the battery life for any AMD laptop, and compare that with an Intel offering. You'll probably find the AMD one is two hours short.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118044)

Dont you have that the wrong way around?

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118050)

For Linux before he patch, yes. For the rest of the world, no.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118282)

Wasnt refering to that part. I meant, doesnt AMD need better battery life to be considered by Apple?
Apple going with AMD wouldnt improve the battery life as OP implies, AMD having better battery life would increase chances of it getting into Apple devices

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118164)

Nope. Intel mobiles perform more processing per watt than AMD, and it's been that way for a few years.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (3, Informative)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118272)

I meant, doesnt AMD need better battery life to be considered by Apple?
Apple going with AMD wouldnt improve the battery life as OP implies, AMD having better battery life would increase chances of it getting into Apple devices
making the comment original

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118496)

Oh. The OP's message was kind of weird. Basically saying he wishes AMD was the first choice because it's battery was worse. Maybe he wanted Apple laptops to suck.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118690)

The issue is that intel FORCES "HD3000" graphics to buy the mobile processors.

In my opinion that is a deal breaker on things like the Air. Even light modern gaming is painful on intel graphics... Sure the new Air is "better" than the last one... With 3x the CPU thrown at the problem. Consider the Air with the same CPU but newer Nvidia graphics? At that point an AMD processor that's slower, but with a better tightly bound graphics is going to be a better experience for the target low-end users more likely to play games.

I have older C2D MacBooks with intel and with Nvidia. The intel is criminally awful at even light WoW with roughly the same CPU. That makes almost all of the current cheap MacBooks unacceptable for a 5 year investment.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118968)

I don't think most Mac Air buyers are looking for a gaming laptop.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#38119128)

The OP isn't talking about a "gaming laptop" but a laptop capable of limited casual gaming. This is perfectly within scope for the target demographic.

I see the total lack of support my i945 Minis have in this regard and wonder how the MBA gets treated. Extant products may simply tell you to take a hike if you try to install them on a MBA.

The Apple netbook should be able play some 5 year old RTS port.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118724)

Intel mobiles perform more processing per watt than AMD, and it's been that way for a few years.

Performance per watt is only tangentially related to battery life. Most laptop CPUs spend 95% of their power on hours idle, which means that the important figure is idle power draw. The fact that the Intel chip could be doing 60% more calculations if it actually had something to do doesn't make the battery last any longer.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118218)

No... it's entirely normal for an intel based laptop to get between 5 and 10 hours depending on the size of the battery and the speed of the chip. I'm not sure I've seen a single AMD laptop (that isn't based on the E-350) with battery life over 4 hours.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118262)

I meant, doesnt AMD need better battery life to be considered by Apple?
Apple going with AMD wouldnt improve the battery life as OP implies, AMD having better battery life would increase chances of it getting into Apple devices

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118336)

We heard you the first three times.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118734)

I don't see where the OP implies that... To me, he implies that AMD's battery life sucks compared to intel's and that that would be sufficient for apple to tell them to fuck off.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118806)

I wish Apple had gone with AMD processors from the beginning. Maybe then AMD would not have a mobile platform practically dead in the water
He wishes Apple had gone with AMD.
Follows up with "AMD would not have a mobile platform practically dead in the water"
implying apple going with AMD would lead to better battery life

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#38119446)

No, implying that AMD wouldn't be stuck with a platform that gets 0 sales and hence 0 investment.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118768)

No... it's entirely normal for an intel based laptop to get between 5 and 10 hours depending on the size of the battery and the speed of the chip. I'm not sure I've seen a single AMD laptop (that isn't based on the E-350) with battery life over 4 hours.

Considering that the CPU is only a fraction of the power draw of a laptop, a factor of two difference in battery life is almost certainly not attributable to the difference in CPUs.

The primary reason for the battery life difference is probably that Intel chips are sold in higher end laptops that contain higher capacity batteries.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118810)

Actually, the typical draw of a whole laptop is in the region of the 50W range, the typical draw of the CPU is in the 30-35W range. Make your CPU 10W less efficient and you shorten battery life by ~20%.

Re:wish they had used AMD chips from the beginning (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about 2 years ago | (#38119552)

I think you're confusing actual power draw with TDP. So for example, an A8-3500M has a 35W TDP, that's the most it will draw for a sustained period of time. The actual power draw at idle will be more in the neighborhood of maybe 10-20W, something like that. So you take that, you add the screen, the hard drive, memory, wireless, etc. and you get your 50W. The CPU is not the dominant factor. In most cases the screen uses more.

Incidentally, Llano has lower idle power consumption [lmgtfy.com] than Core i3.

So as for this:

I'm not sure I've seen a single AMD laptop (that isn't based on the E-350) with battery life over 4 hours.

Here you go. [hp.com] AMD A6, "9-cell (100 WHr): Up to 12 hours and 30 minutes."

*** SHOCK *** (5, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118012)

So Apple were trying to chose between the only two players in the performance x86 world?! They actually stopped to consider the alternative rather than just picking the default when millions of dollars were at stake?

I'm blown away, like everyone else I thought Steve Jobs just picked names out of a hat.

Re:*** SHOCK *** (3, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118114)

Nobody picks names out of a hat these days. Everyone now uses psychoactive drugs to have a vision where the X86 gods will appear and guide you. If an ARM god appears you know that your product is cursed.

Re:*** SHOCK *** (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118296)

If an ARM god appears you know that your product is cursed.

Unless your project is an iPad... or Nintendo DS, or Canon camera, or TomTom GPS or.... (there are a lot more). :-)

Re:*** SHOCK *** (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118300)

you know that your product is cursed.

Unless it's a mobile phone—then it's the other way around. (Pssh, yeah, sure, Intel. You'll get a slice of that pie someday, I'm sure.)

AMD always considered ... (4, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118020)

AMD is always considered before negotiating prices with Intel. Flirting with AMD before choosing Intel is a pretty common practice, even for those who planned on going with Intel all along.

Re:AMD always considered ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118304)

What a bunch of assholes.

Re:AMD always considered ... (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118312)

It's one thing to flirt. It is entirely another to be actually planing on using them, which by most accounts Apple was. I don't think this was just a gambit. AMD also would have given them a couple of advantages. Far superior GPU and better power efficiency (so I have heard, anyways), mainly. Probably would have been cheaper too, although that is just a guess.

Re:AMD always considered ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118576)

If you can tell whether a company is bluffing when talking to AMD, Intel can surely tell, making the whole effort useless. If Apple seriously wanted to use this strategy to negotiate a better price on a multi-billion dollar contract, they would go to great lengths to make their flirtation with AMD look serious.

Re:AMD always considered ... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38119102)

Indeed, perhaps they would actually flirt with with AMD, considering it as an actual option. If AMD is hungry enough, they might might go in for razor thin margins, or customizations.

And by locking up AMD stock for a period, they not only strengthen an Intel competitor, but also temporarily give intel a headache in the anti-trust arena - they want AMD to be small, but not so small in their market that regulators come sniffing around....

Intel (-1, Troll)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118038)

At least AMD doesn't build hardware level backdoors into their CPUs.

Re:Intel (4, Interesting)

Macrat (638047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118256)

At least AMD doesn't build hardware level backdoors into their CPUs.

That you know of.

Re:Intel (1)

allanw (842185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118508)

Honestly, who cares? You're mischaracterizing the DRM feature as something that is a backdoor into your computer that can what, spy on you? Remotely disable your computer? I haven't seen a single source demonstrate that their DRM feature does this.

This would have been great for.. (4, Insightful)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118088)

Hackintosh community as drivers for AMD based netbooks and laptops would've become available. So wish AMD had the resources to meant high volume demands. Maybe next time!

Re:This would have been great for.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118214)

I was running os x on my old amd system quite early on in the osx86 scene...

AMD makes hot cpu (1)

mmontuori (2508452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118094)

AMD for iphone, wow, the phone would require a heat sink bigger than the phone itself. http://wwe.montuori.net/ [montuori.net]

PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118192)

Years ago when Apple dropped the PowerPC in favor of Intel, Jobs claimed it was because the electrical W:MIPS of PPC was predicted to soon fall short of the performance of x86, with battery, fan and other limits to consider - just as iP* and other mobiles dominated Jobs' vision.

How has that turned out? Have PPCs really fallen behind, or hit a wall, compared to Intel's CPUs Apple uses? How do the AMD x86es compare to the Intel ones on that criterion?

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118248)

I don't know if he ever made that specific claim, but IBM was more interested in the XBox 360 and PS 3 than the Macintosh. Intel was able to provide a roadmap of future plans/processors.

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#38119342)

Jobs most certainly did make that specific claim [everymac.com]:

When we look at Intel, they've got great performance, yes, but they've got something else that's very important to us. Just as important as performance, is power consumption. And the way we look at it is performance per watt. For one watt of power how much performance do you get? And when we look at the future road maps projected out in mid-2006 and beyond, what we see is the PowerPC gives us sort of 15 units of performance per watt, but the Intel road map in the future gives us 70, and so this tells us what we have to do.

IBM had a roadmap as well as Intel, but Jobs claimed that Intel's roadmap was for better performance per watt. I never saw either roadmap. That's why I want to know how the two chip lines actually performed per watt since. Which would show whether a decision based on it was actually the right one. And if not, suggest that perhaps (if Jobs expected otherwise) that there was a different reason than the one Jobs claimed.

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118252)

How has that turned out? Have PPCs really fallen behind, or hit a wall, compared to Intel's CPUs Apple uses?

Does my XBox count?

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118386)

Does my XBox count?

It's a computer. What else would it do?

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (2)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118422)

PPC had fallen behind even before apple made the switch to intel. Those G4 Powerbooks weren't as powerful in common tasks as x86 PCs.

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118760)

Uh, duh? Laptop versus desktop.

The G4 wasn't meant to be as powerful. For that, it would've sucked up 300% the power.

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#38119364)

Pure performance is not what I'm talking about, and besides your claim is arguable.

Where's a chart of the watts per performance, when running apps like Photoshop and Office, for each of PPC, Intel and AMD? That's the issue that I'm talking about, and that Jobs claimed made his decision to switch.

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (3, Informative)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38119546)

It wasn't a question of IBM "falling behind." IBM is still cutting the bleeding edge as Intel, even today. The PowerPC's in Mac's were different from the PPC's IBM supplies for their own hw and xboxes... one major difference, Mac's PPCs had Altevec. But the issue was IBM wasn't pushing the envelope on the Mac PPC's fast enough for Apple's tastes, not exactly falling behind... IBM didn't have their heart in it because Apple was such a small customer for them... only a small percentage of the chips IBM produced were for the Macintosh. Apple had no negotiating power with IBM to get them to step up their R&D in the Altevec PPCs. Intel saw Apple as a tasty meal and promised them everything they wanted, and except for GPU, pretty much made good on the promises. All of this notwithstanding, PPC's are great technology, and they are still around and will still be around for some time... just not on the desktop (often I make the mistake of thinking the desktop is all there is... of course there are plenty of spaces IBM has taken PPC to that Intel couldn't touch.)

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118618)

PowerPC is oriented towards embedded (PPC 4xx) and manycore supercomputing (BlueGene) workloads, and isn't really ideal for desktops at this time. POWER7 is IBM's flagship server processor, and outperforms anything x86 by quite a considerable margin (admittedly while drawing 200W.)

Re:PPC vs Intel vs AMD? (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38119602)

Its a common mistake, and one I often make... thinking that the desktop is what drives processor technology... hearing the echo's of fanbois makes me chuckle ("x86 was better than the G4 Macs!"). If Intel could compete with PPC, then IBM would be using Intel, end of story. No one seems to notice, or place any importance, on the fact that Intel's R&D hit the same frequency wall that IBM PPC's did: I don't see any consumer-level 10Ghz Intel processors available, which one might have predicted we'd have by now looking at the pace of processor development by the late 1990's... Intel got a little more squeeze a little earlier than IBM in that area, even if proc frequency between the two types didn't quite match up when evaluating equivalently powered chips... but they both hit the wall eventually. I really wish we'd get a nice slashdot treatment on the WTF with available consumer GHz limits.

thunderbolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38118550)

also intel doesn't license thunderbolt to any other chip maker, so I can't see why they would possibly go with something else at this point.

so the next mac pro will have to have on board vid (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118852)

For it to get Thunderbolt as it seems unlikey to be part of any add in video card.

So what will the new intel MB with TB look like? will the high end Core i7 and sever chips have no hope of TB in less intel add's video to the cpus and even then how will TB work with a add in ATI or nvidia card?

Sources also said.... (1)

djjockey (1301073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38118818)

I planned on getting rich by now. It didn't happen, I guess something changed.

I think you'll find there are lots of examples of companies planning to do something and then changing their mind. Not sure any of it is newsworthy...

Makes Sense now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38119496)

I remember at the time that the Air launched, it was somewhat big news that Intel developed a customised core 2 duo.
That in itself wasn't unusual, but that the chip came out of nowhere, with no availability to other OEM's was.

I guess Intel stepped up and did what it needed to woo Apple into taking their chip.
Probably gave Apple cheaper pricing for having an all Intel lineup too...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...