Apple may start using AMD processors

According to an AppleInsider report, Apple may be looking to welcome AMD into the Apple-compatible CPU family. Meetings between AMD personnel and Apple, as well as sightings of AMD employees on Apple buses, all help legitimize reports that AMD has been working with Apple to make a CPU that will work in their machines. 

Many are citing Apple's recent quibbles with Intel as the catalyst for this change in direction. While Apple has been using Intel processors since 2006, Intel has limited the availability of new processors to Apple, reportedly slowing down the update cycle of Apple products. Another qualm with Intel is over their recent lawsuit against Nvidia for developing alternative graphics chips that can be used with Intel's "Nehalem" family of processors. In 2004, the two signed a deal that allowed Nvidia to develop an integrated graphics chip on Intel's equipment that featured an integrated memory controller. The Nvidia chip was dubbed the MCP79 platform, and it ended up in the entire line of MacBook laptops. Now that Intel is alleging that Nvidia isn't allowed to make more integrated chips for the Intel Nehalem processors, Apple has good reason to begin looking elsewhere for a CPU manufacturer.

Apple shied away from AMD in the past due to concerns over higher pricing and lower performance compared to the competition at Intel. Now, AMD is more competitive in both price and performance. While they still lag behind Intel in the mobile computing market, their purchase of ATI will be a selling point for Apple, who is looking for more flexible GPU options. 

Of course, Apple could just be using the idea of using AMD chips to whip Intel back into shape. The last thing Intel wants is to lose their dominance in the Apple market, and Apple entering into talks with AMD is a message that should be crystal clear, just shy of an email from Steve Jobs himself, most likely saying "Are you nuts?" 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hacker says Windows is more secure than Mac; calls Apple fans "ignorant"

Next Story

Apple backs down after denying iPhone app

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

As I am no computer expert I can only speculate but it makes sense to me that hackers would create undetectable exploits for Apple many corporate people use it for data and corporate information is as much or more valuable than personal.
Not to mention no VS or Firewall present you would hardly notice anything.
In windows you have to corrupt something to gain access.
And then you notice something is wrong.

It seems like people are forgetting the days when OS X was first introduced. I have seen all kinds of sites giving command line solutions for problems they could not solve through gui.

Apple makes the hardware and the OS so it is a simpler matter to eke out maximum compatibility and performance.

I doubt very much that the latest versions of OS X are compatible with say 4-5 year old Macs. Microsoft has to very seriously take into account this backward compatibility issue. No wonder they have to lug a lot of garbage from the earlier years to accommodate this.

What would be really scary is M$ coming out with a PC of their own with their own special version of windows matched and tuned to the hardware with out any other overload of unnecessary drivers and other bullcrap. It just might blow the pants off of a mac.

I recall an experience of a few years ago. I was in Dubai helping out a friend with setting up a commercial photo studio and managing his networking of PCs and Macs. I had a 1 gb aPacer thumb drive which worked flawlessly on all the x86 windows machines. The first time I plugged it into the USB port of mac keyboard it simply fried it. So much for Mac hardware compatibility.

BTW he had 5 Mac 5s, I believe with OSX 8.xx, I don't recollect exactly. They would all crash at least once a day if not more requiring hard reset. So much for compatibility of the OS with their own. hardware. Only reason he had to use Macs was his 16 megapixel Professional Digital Sinars had no available interface or software for Windows based machines.

AMD FTL more like. Next Mac you buy will be a downgrade if they do go with AMD. I will certainly not upgrade and will switch back to a Windows laptop.

Septimus said,
AMD FTL more like. Next Mac you buy will be a downgrade if they do go with AMD. I will certainly not upgrade and will switch back to a Windows laptop.
Best ignorant comment i seen in awhile thank you

Edited by ShiFteDReaLitY, Apr 17 2010, 3:30pm :

Wtf are you talking about?

"Intel has limited the availability of new processors to Apple, reportedly slowing down the update cycle of Apple products."

Intel gave Apple the first batch of the small die Core 2 Duo's for the MacBook Air before anyone else and as well as other chips.

Apple is not leaving Intel for AMD. A big reason would be is that Intel and Apple are working on Light Peak together. If Apple went AMD then the relationship between the two would be very bad.

apple should just let users install MAC OS on all PC Hardware then that would give certain users the ability to test mac os and perhaps that is what apple needs to do and relax on the restrictions.

soldier1st said,
apple should just let users install MAC OS on all PC Hardware then that would give certain users the ability to test mac os and perhaps that is what apple needs to do and relax on the restrictions.
They don't need to.

Since Apple didn't embrace the nVidia's ION, I guess they're negotiating about an alternative low-power CPU+GPU combo.

are the performance ratios of amd vs. intel based on windows calculation tests? or are they done on a lower level performance? Could there be any benefit of running the processor on an optimized system designed explicitly for their processor?

They should open OS X up in my opinion, it might happen one day. They could keep their part proprietry and sell the OS at the current fair price that they do $29. but alllow the hackintosh community to continue making drivers (kexts) for non apple hardware. Right now it's easier than ever to get OS X to work on non apple hardware because of the hackintosh community. That alone with apple supporting AMD processors would make Apple quite popular IMO.

Seeing as Apple is a big (?) supporter of OpenCL (they designed it after all), this could perhaps have to do with Fusion. If AMD's Fusion processors will have decent GPGPU / OpenCL performance, they should be very interesting processors. Llano isn't terribly exciting, but what comes after it might be. And while Intel is also integrating their GPU's on-die, they are almost guaranteed to suck royally versus AMD's offerings both in GPGPU and general graphics work.

Apple is doing this not to meet your (an I mean as a customer) needs, they're doing this for themselves, they're competeting with top dog Microsoft. As soon as this happens and Apple extends its support to cross platform, you will see and Apple explode, literly. I've been saying this for years, if Jobs would just swalllow his pride for a second, and open it's market to cross platform technology he'd open a new can of worms against the big dog Microsoft. Besides he could have the best of both worlds, subsidized personal computing, by AMD, and power house systems by Intel. Wich would give a giant playing field in competetion, Market Shares anyone?

taintedc0bra said,
Apple is doing this not to meet your (an I mean as a customer) needs, they're doing this for themselves, they're competeting with top dog Microsoft. As soon as this happens and Apple extends its support to cross platform, you will see and Apple explode, literly. I've been saying this for years, if Jobs would just swalllow his pride for a second, and open it's market to cross platform technology he'd open a new can of worms against the big dog Microsoft. Besides he could have the best of both worlds, subsidized personal computing, by AMD, and power house systems by Intel. Wich would give a giant playing field in competetion, Market Shares anyone?

What Apple needs to do is buy out Adobe, unlock their operating system, and make the focus of Apple on gadgets and middleware - and for hardware have a certification process where they have to meet certain standards such as using EFI, SMC chip and a few components required for the standard. Microsoft knows that Apple will never do that and thus the reason why they're so complacent when it comes to Windows development.

rawr_boy81 said,

What Apple needs to do is buy out Adobe, unlock their operating system, and make the focus of Apple on gadgets and middleware - and for hardware have a certification process where they have to meet certain standards such as using EFI, SMC chip and a few components required for the standard. Microsoft knows that Apple will never do that and thus the reason why they're so complacent when it comes to Windows development.

Or that Apple simply can't do it. The fact that Mac's don't live up to their "it just works" marketing spin WHILST Apple controls the platform, hardware and accessories.

If they opened it up then platform support would be worse than Linux was 5 years ago!

Microsoft have spent millions (maybe more?) on getting thousands of combinations of hardware to work with Windows. It's taken decades to get to this point. Apple can't do something that enormous - as the head start both Linux and Windows already has means it's got a lot of work to do just to catch up.

Of course the real reason is that their Marketing and PR machines wouldn't allow it. Mac's lose their "niche" (read: expensive") image where anyone can get OS X on any kit.

Apple have reasonable technology, but a world class marketing department. Change the target market or expand outside of it's current "class" status and it would crumble.

Until AMD's processors catch up in terms of performance there should be no chance that this happens. I would bet that they are talking to AMD about ATi cards. Apple makes its name by using only premium parts. Currently, and unfortunately, AMD is not premium.

AMD was king in cost, power and performance before Intel unveiled the Core family of processors. Now they are only consistently winning on cost. Considering that Apple's big-thing is currently battery life, I do not understand why they would go with a weaker processor that eats more battery life except to increase an already high profit margin. While I can understand the very simple logic in doing that, I cannot see Steve Job's willing to put admittedly sub-par mobile processors into its line up that reduce everything, from battery life to retail value (they would all-but have to reduce the cost or fear a small rebellion from reviewers as everything gets slower).

This is also probably related to Intel's strong-arming of nVidia and forcing them out of the chipset business. A lot of people agree that Intel does not make the best chipsets and Apple has just been strong-armed into using Intel's chipsets as a result of the feud. I wonder if Apple is trying to scare Intel into playing ball in some respect, but who knows how--price reductions, much improved GPU performance (onboard GPU performance got worse with the newest Core iX family of MBPs due to lock-in with Intel's chipsets) or even something else.

Just for the record, I am using an AMD tri-core processor in my desktop, which I am typing this on. It does more than enough for me, but if I absolutely wanted performance on this computer, then I would have gone for Intel.

pickypg said,
blablbla

i rather buy 2 phenoms then 1 i7 (similiar price-performance).
and afaik not to long ago AMD released their 'lightweight' lines, which have great performance and use low ammounts of power (okay, not as great as the core's perhaps, but not to far behind).
Plus AMD and ATI combined, and AMD wanting to start a project of their CPU and GPU more combined as a whole, and with the current ATI processors outrunning any processor Intel or AMD have to offer. (same with nvidia, but they dont work together with intel =p)
combine that neatly together and u can get a very powerfull low watt peformance laptop.

pickypg said,
Until AMD's processors catch up in terms of performance there should be no chance that this happens. I would bet that they are talking to AMD about ATi cards. Apple makes its name by using only premium parts. Currently, and unfortunately, AMD is not premium.

AMD was king in cost, power and performance before Intel unveiled the Core family of processors. Now they are only consistently winning on cost. Considering that Apple's big-thing is currently battery life, I do not understand why they would go with a weaker processor that eats more battery life except to increase an already high profit margin. While I can understand the very simple logic in doing that, I cannot see Steve Job's willing to put admittedly sub-par mobile processors into its line up that reduce everything, from battery life to retail value (they would all-but have to reduce the cost or fear a small rebellion from reviewers as everything gets slower).

This is also probably related to Intel's strong-arming of nVidia and forcing them out of the chipset business. A lot of people agree that Intel does not make the best chipsets and Apple has just been strong-armed into using Intel's chipsets as a result of the feud. I wonder if Apple is trying to scare Intel into playing ball in some respect, but who knows how--price reductions, much improved GPU performance (onboard GPU performance got worse with the newest Core iX family of MBPs due to lock-in with Intel's chipsets) or even something else.

Just for the record, I am using an AMD tri-core processor in my desktop, which I am typing this on. It does more than enough for me, but if I absolutely wanted performance on this computer, then I would have gone for Intel.


Maybe Apple would introduce the AMD processor into the iMac line because battery life does not matter.

I doubt AMD/ATI setup will be able to fit in the TDP profile of the MB/MBP anytime soon.. They might pull smth off with this Llano project, but it has to be something really of a breakthrough to make Apple consider such a move in my opinion

Avlor said,
I doubt AMD/ATI setup will be able to fit in the TDP profile of the MB/MBP anytime soon.. They might pull smth off with this Llano project, but it has to be something really of a breakthrough to make Apple consider such a move in my opinion

Apple has alot of expertise from PA SEMI, maybe they're teaming up with AMD to make that a possibility.

Avlor said,
I doubt AMD/ATI setup will be able to fit in the TDP profile of the MB/MBP anytime soon.. They might pull smth off with this Llano project, but it has to be something really of a breakthrough to make Apple consider such a move in my opinion

I imagine integrating AMD processors into the iMac, but not the MacBook. Not yet.

Avlor said,
I doubt AMD/ATI setup will be able to fit in the TDP profile of the MB/MBP anytime soon.. They might pull smth off with this Llano project, but it has to be something really of a breakthrough to make Apple consider such a move in my opinion

PC Vendors recently started putting in Phenom IIs in their notebooks. This could be the start, but I'm expecting just like everyone else that Fusion will make the jump into the portable space of Apple

Thank GOD. Intel needs to go away. I love how Nvidia hates them and now its gonna be apple too.

I cant stand intel anymore.

Sikh said,
Thank GOD. Intel needs to go away. I love how Nvidia hates them and now its gonna be apple too.

I cant stand intel anymore.


Why?

Do you like slow computers?

Kenji said,

Why?

Do you like slow computers?

Pfft. AMD aren't that bad.

You never know, Sikh may want to back a company that hasn't been found guilty of unlawful business practises.

Kenji said,
Why?

Do you like slow computers?

Where have you been? Intel locking out competitors chipsets from the market for starters - issues regarding the Atom CPU and how things are bundled. The hate of Intel has nothing to do with the products per-say but the way in which they conduct their business. The same reason that I hate Apple's business practices but I still purchase their products because I purchase my products base on what they can do rather than the politics that surround them.

Sikh said,
Thank GOD. Intel needs to go away.

I've seen comments that say, "AMD should just die already!". I'll tell you what I said to those comments. If AMD were to fold up and go out of business, Intel chips would skyrocket in price because they'd be the only mainstream CPU vendor, and people would be complaining about high chip prices. If Intel were to go out of business, the same would be true of AMD.

You better be glad that there's competition in the CPU market.

Kenji said,

Why?

Do you like slow computers?

the fail in your post amazes me. Amd processors are great processors. While they aren't leading the market right now they are affordable and overclocking / perform VERY well.

Like others have said, I would like to back up company that doesn't have unlawful business practices.

I do believe we should have competition but that's it. I'm with Amd because they are affordable and I can overclock my back edition a lot to get a lot more performance. So when it does get "slow and old" I can revive it.

Either way, Do not like Intels business practices.

I hope they switch to AMD. That would allow increased revenue for them,meaning increased development, hopefully allowing them to remain competitive and even possibly gain ground over intel.

cloaked said,
I hope they switch to AMD. That would allow increased revenue for them,meaning increased development, hopefully allowing them to remain competitive and even possibly gain ground over intel.

Exactly. Competition is great.

Edited by svnO.o, Apr 16 2010, 7:10pm :

Doesn't matter who big a company is, they dropped ibm to go with intel due to displeasure at ibm.
So it makes sense they would consider AMD, but that's not to say they could be dropped at a future time.

Mike Brown said,
ATI is a part of AMD. Maybe they were discussing ATI?
I would bet that they were talking about GPU's as Nvidia's new offerings are a letdown somehow and ATI is ahead of the race right now.

Mike Brown said,
ATI is a part of AMD. Maybe they were discussing ATI?

Doesn't matter nowadays, CPU + GPU combo's obviously. You can see where they are heading.

Regardless if this happens and AMD comes in with Apple. People who spend money on those crappy Macbooks are ignorant about computing. That seriously is a waste of money. Might as well have gotten the mac mini. Macbook pro is where its at. - but even that is below par compared to what the PC offers in that price range. Style included!

dimithrak said,
Regardless if this happens and AMD comes in with Apple. People who spend money on those crappy Macbooks are ignorant about computing. That seriously is a waste of money. Might as well have gotten the mac mini. Macbook pro is where its at. - but even that is below par compared to what the PC offers in that price range. Style included!

Maybe because some of us don't want to be saddled with Windows and the laundry list of issues that I have with the operating system - that for 10 years Microsoft has refused to fix. Maybe Windows 8 will address those problems but I doubt it given 10 years of ignoring the problems.

dimithrak said,
Regardless if this happens and AMD comes in with Apple. People who spend money on those crappy Macbooks are ignorant about computing. That seriously is a waste of money. Might as well have gotten the mac mini. Macbook pro is where its at. - but even that is below par compared to what the PC offers in that price range. Style included!

You really like to make generalised statements. The products offer no value to YOU. That doesn't mean they hold no value for others and it most certainly does not mean macbook owners are ignorant.

We get it... You want to save money and be happy with a PC. But that doesn't mean you need to go around bashing those who have happily purchased a Mac.

Thanks.

Edited by ccuk, Apr 17 2010, 7:11am :

rawr_boy81 said,

Maybe because some of us don't want to be saddled with Windows and the laundry list of issues that I have with the operating system - that for 10 years Microsoft has refused to fix. Maybe Windows 8 will address those problems but I doubt it given 10 years of ignoring the problems.

Oh please - do us all a favor and come up with something tangiable (like cost - although you lost that argument from earlier on) as to why you are constantly sticking up for Mac's and commenting on why you percieve Windows is so bad.

Mac OS X is a fine platform, although I generally use Windows 7 or Fedora - but that's personal choice.

Why not tell us what the actual problem is that you have with Windows? Your views don't seem to coinside with general public and critic reviews of Windows 7 so I'll be intested to hear what you find so bad about the most brought platform in the world that you'll be happy to spend $800 EXTRA to run a different OS on your generic x86 hardware?

I refuse to buy an intel driven machine with an ATI graphics chip, likewise, I would not buy a machine with an AMD processor and nVidia graphics chip. This is what has stopped me from buy a new iMac. However- a move to AMD would let me get a new iMac!

Matt Hardwick said,
I refuse to buy an intel driven machine with an ATI graphics chip, likewise, I would not buy a machine with an AMD processor and nVidia graphics chip. This is what has stopped me from buy a new iMac. However- a move to AMD would let me get a new iMac!

Why?!

Matt Hardwick said,
I refuse to buy an intel driven machine with an ATI graphics chip, likewise, I would not buy a machine with an AMD processor and nVidia graphics chip. This is what has stopped me from buy a new iMac. However- a move to AMD would let me get a new iMac!

What ?

Matt Hardwick said,
I refuse to buy an intel driven machine with an ATI graphics chip, likewise, I would not buy a machine with an AMD processor and nVidia graphics chip.

Is there any logical reason as to why? Your comment has me absolutely baffled.

Edited by svnO.o, Apr 16 2010, 7:42pm :

svnO.o said,
Is there any logical reason as to why? Your comment has me absolutely baffled.

Matt is attempting to legitimise his hate of Mac's by setting an unrealistic demand as to justify him never purchasing a Mac.

It would be a bit like me saying, "I will never purchase a PC until Saudi Arabia allows same sex marriage" - knowing full well that it would never happen thus legitimises me never purchasing a PC.

I doubt this will happen unless AMD catches up with Intel (after all many mac users are power users with high performance demands). Doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but sure, eventually.

amon91 said,
I doubt this will happen unless AMD catches up with Intel (after all many mac users are power users with high performance demands). Doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but sure, eventually.

Many? wow most of them I ever see are people checking their e-mail, surfing, or messing around in garageband.... if they wanted high performance they would of shelled out for a Mac Pro, but then I don't know really anyone with one *scratches head*

neufuse said,

Many? wow most of them I ever see are people checking their e-mail, surfing, or messing around in garageband.... if they wanted high performance they would of shelled out for a Mac Pro, but then I don't know really anyone with one *scratches head*

so so true. its the wanna be cool mac people who do that most often. lol

neufuse said,

Many? wow most of them I ever see are people checking their e-mail, surfing, or messing around in garageband.... if they wanted high performance they would of shelled out for a Mac Pro, but then I don't know really anyone with one *scratches head*

No kidding. The only Mac users I know have no clue about computers and bought them because the commercials said they were easy to use. Doesn't really matter since all they do is email and stupid ass facebook.

amon91 said,
I doubt this will happen unless AMD catches up with Intel (after all many mac users are power users with high performance demands). Doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but sure, eventually.

ya mac users are not power users. You buy a mac because you don't know anything about computers.

amon91 said,
I doubt this will happen unless AMD catches up with Intel (after all many mac users are power users with high performance demands). Doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but sure, eventually.

ya mac users are not power users. You buy a mac because you don't know anything about computers.

PeterKD said,

ya mac users are not power users. You buy a mac because you don't know anything about computers.


Not true. Macs are still used a lot for print, advanced design and video editing, among other things.

amon91 said,
I doubt this will happen unless AMD catches up with Intel (after all many mac users are power users with high performance demands). Doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but sure, eventually.

HAHA lol mac users are power users yeah right some maybe but most are label snobs who only use it for email and twatter or because it looks good at the local coffee shop whilst sipping a double frappa mocha latte or whatever the latest un-coffee thing is to drink (me i love a triple shot espresso)

Edited by Athlonite, Apr 16 2010, 6:51pm :

amon91 said,

Not true. Macs are still used a lot for print, advanced design and video editing, among other things.

+1 I don't think a lot of PC users are aware that Mac is built ontop Unix and that Unix really another world that's full of geeks, nerds and computer geniuses of all kinds.

crazyfish said,

+1 I don't think a lot of PC users are aware that Mac is built ontop Unix and that Unix really another world that's full of geeks, nerds and computer geniuses of all kinds.

And how many people that have mac's bought them because of the BSD based backend? very few even know what terminal is for... most people who want Unix just go to linux and make a cheap system there with the same power for far less money

neufuse said,

And how many people that have mac's bought them because of the BSD based backend? very few even know what terminal is for... most people who want Unix just go to linux and make a cheap system there with the same power for far less money

I purchased a mac, because my PC was old and dead, I also work with UNIX/Filepro. I decided on the mac platform because I wanted a native OS where I could program as well as have commercially supported applications (Office). Best of all, I can run both Windows and MAC.

And as for the comments on the mac not being in line with pricing, I'd like to see someone post a comparable mac pro machine. And not be as expensive.

neufuse said,

And how many people that have mac's bought them because of the BSD based backend? very few even know what terminal is for... most people who want Unix just go to linux and make a cheap system there with the same power for far less money

At least there I live pretty much biggest part of users know that it's UNIX type operating system and does work with Terminal. I do own Mac, I use Windows/Mac/Linux/etc. Mac OS X without UNIX kernel, without Terminal, am... I think I wouldn't buy it.

neufuse said,

Many? wow most of them I ever see are people checking their e-mail, surfing, or messing around in garageband.... if they wanted high performance they would of shelled out for a Mac Pro, but then I don't know really anyone with one *scratches head*

I would recommend checking out some commercial entities such as the media networks and print / design studios.

Your not going to spot any powerusers in starbucks or in the library using any os, just looking around your going to see casual users.

Also reading through the comments here, some are really good, but the standard anti-mac crap (mac users don't know how to use a computer & also yes Mac OSX is unix based and built on BSD and yes many people don't go into the terminal. I wonder how many windows users know what a command prompt is or the powershell let alone user it.) are really not doing this site any favours. Slashdot had a lot of similar comments and it's seen by many as a place to not have a serious discussion about any thing tech related. It's not just putting off mac fans, it puts off people who enjoy computing / technology as a whole, they read that crap and "it just works" for the n'th time and they just read another site like slashdot and move on. Many other sites manage to maintain a good mix of comments, im not saying that people don't have a preferred platform, personally i like to think im a platform neutral person and will point out flaws in any system, aswell as pointing out whats done right. I love technology and because my prefered platform is the Mac i would never shot myself in the foot and say that im never going to use windows or linux (typing this from chrome in Win7 Ult).

As for the topic, im a bit wary as i did have some problems with applications randomly crashing with an AMD processor many years back. It had been a few years so perhaps i just experienced a bad batch, however it's been one of those feelings that have stuck, so ive always stuck with intel processors. However even though i buy Intel, i truly hope that AMD goes from strength to strength, and if they are a good fit then i doubt it won't matter if it's intel or amd inside it's really the performance in processing and power where it will be decided. AMD have always really pushed for a lot of changes to the x86 architecture, and x86 owes AMD alot for x64. Im sure without AMD intel would be pushing a consumer version of the itaium arch with higher costs and less compatibility.

PeterKD said,

ya mac users are not power users. You buy a mac because you don't know anything about computers.

That is the most ignorant statement I have read in a very long time.

crazyfish said,
+1 I don't think a lot of PC users are aware that Mac is built ontop Unix and that Unix really another world that's full of geeks, nerds and computer geniuses of all kinds.

Even so it doesn't change that the majority of end users in the Windows and Mac world are normal users who want to get onto 'teh internet' and check their facebook page, type and print some documents and maybe send a few emails.

The average end user in the Windows world wouldn't have the slightest clue as to the Windows NT kernel and how awesome it is, just as the average Mac user doesn't have the slightest clue as to the BSD/Mach heritage that sits under the hood and how it is UNIX2003 compliant. People turn on their computer, use it, then turn it back off.

As for AMD versus Intel - the big competition is in the mobile space and power per watt which unless Apple teams up with AMD with the knowledge they acquired when they purchased PA SEMI, AMD products are always behind the ball when it comes to performance versus power.

What people aren't considering is this; future ATI GPU's and the potential of having an ATI/AMD chipset with an Intel processor? after all, ATI have in the past provided chipsets for Intel and after all, money is money, even if it means making a chipset for a competitor.

ivdubvr6i said,

And as for the comments on the mac not being in line with pricing, I'd like to see someone post a comparable mac pro machine. And not be as expensive.



I took you up on your challenge and here are my results:
Apple:
Mac Pro, Single 2.66GHz Xeon, 3GB 1066MHz DDR3, 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 4870 512MB, Single 18x Superdrive, Apple Mouse, Apple Keyboard. Price $2,699.

My selection:
Core i7 930 (2.8GHz), 4GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3, WD 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 5770 1GB, Asus 24x DVD-RW drive w/lightscribe, Razer Lachesis Mouse, Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Keyboard, ASRock X58 Extreme ATX Motherboard, Lian Li PC-8NB, Lian Li Silent Force 750W PSU, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit. Price $1,835.

Also keep in mind that with the Mac Pro, I made sure there we NONE of the expensive optional extras selected (except for the 4870), so there is no argument here for the software that comes with it because it just comes with the OS.

Edited by Jeddyb, Apr 17 2010, 2:18am : I accidentally quoted the wrong person, so I had to change the quote.

Jeddyb said,


I took you up on your challenge and here are my results:
Apple:
Mac Pro, Single 2.66GHz Xeon, 3GB 1066MHz DDR3, 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 4870 512MB, Single 18x Superdrive, Apple Mouse, Apple Keyboard. Price $2,699.

My selection:
Core i7 930 (2.8GHz), 4GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3, WD 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 5770 1GB, Asus 24x DVD-RW drive w/lightscribe, Razer Lachesis Mouse, Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Keyboard, ASRock X58 Extreme ATX Motherboard, Lian Li PC-8NB, Lian Li Silent Force 750W PSU, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit. Price $1,835.

Also keep in mind that with the Mac Pro, I made sure there we NONE of the expensive optional extras selected (except for the 4870), so there is no argument here for the software that comes with it because it just comes with the OS.

1) It has ECC memory, your pricing doesn't include it.

2) How much is Mac OS X worth to the individual; for me, until Microsoft produces a better Windows than it sells at the moment there is nothing as so far as a price difference that would make me move from Mac OS X to Windows.

Maybe if Microsoft fixed my laundry list of complaints about Windows I might consider using a machine loaded with Windows from a big name vendor - something for over a decade Microsoft has failed to do.

rawr_boy81 said,

1) It has ECC memory, your pricing doesn't include it.

2) How much is Mac OS X worth to the individual; for me, until Microsoft produces a better Windows than it sells at the moment there is nothing as so far as a price difference that would make me move from Mac OS X to Windows.

Maybe if Microsoft fixed my laundry list of complaints about Windows I might consider using a machine loaded with Windows from a big name vendor - something for over a decade Microsoft has failed to do.

If an OS is worth $864 to you on a single PC (a non-server OS I should point out) then there is no hope and this discussion is over. For $864 of my own cash I'll happily use a flavor of Linux, Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows thanks.

You challenged the forum to find a PC that is cheaper than a comparable Mac. Jeddyb did this, and instead of conceeding you've moved onto the OS.

Both systems ship with a platform.

The comparision is fair and the Apple Mac is $864 MORE EXPENSIVE than the comparable PC.

Well done Jeddyb and thanks for using your time to prove the point many people already know, Mac's are overpriced.

stevehoot said,

If an OS is worth $864 to you on a single PC (a non-server OS I should point out) then there is no hope and this discussion is over. For $864 of my own cash I'll happily use a flavor of Linux, Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows thanks.

You challenged the forum to find a PC that is cheaper than a comparable Mac. Jeddyb did this, and instead of conceeding you've moved onto the OS.

Both systems ship with a platform.

The comparision is fair and the Apple Mac is $864 MORE EXPENSIVE than the comparable PC.

Well done Jeddyb and thanks for using your time to prove the point many people already know, Mac's are overpriced.

Well to be honest JeddyB is right. That OS could very well be worth a lot more than $800 to him... For many reasons. This is the small minded pettiness of Neowin at work right here once again. It's always about how much it costs to buy a Mac isn't it?

Has it occurred to you, at all, that the machine may be used for professional purposes? And there is a fairly good reason for using OS X over Windows or *nix?

ccuk said,

Well to be honest JeddyB is right. That OS could very well be worth a lot more than $800 to him... For many reasons. This is the small minded pettiness of Neowin at work right here once again. It's always about how much it costs to buy a Mac isn't it?

Has it occurred to you, at all, that the machine may be used for professional purposes? And there is a fairly good reason for using OS X over Windows or *nix?

I meant to say rawr_boy81 is right... -_-

ccuk said,

It's always about how much it costs to buy a Mac isn't it?

It was asked of someone to find a comparable PC for cheaper than a comparable Mac. It was done, and not the first time either. A challenge was made and he got called on it.

Jeddyb said,


I took you up on your challenge and here are my results:
Apple:
Mac Pro, Single 2.66GHz Xeon, 3GB 1066MHz DDR3, 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 4870 512MB, Single 18x Superdrive, Apple Mouse, Apple Keyboard. Price $2,699.

My selection:
Core i7 930 (2.8GHz), 4GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3, WD 640GB SATA, Radeon HD 5770 1GB, Asus 24x DVD-RW drive w/lightscribe, Razer Lachesis Mouse, Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Keyboard, ASRock X58 Extreme ATX Motherboard, Lian Li PC-8NB, Lian Li Silent Force 750W PSU, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit. Price $1,835.

Also keep in mind that with the Mac Pro, I made sure there we NONE of the expensive optional extras selected (except for the 4870), so there is no argument here for the software that comes with it because it just comes with the OS.

Nice, nice...

But what happens when you switch that Ci7 with the Xenon processor? How high does the price go? My point is, it is on par with how much it should cost. Last I checked the processor used in the mac pro line was about 1,000 alone. (granted apple will get it discounted) Also need to factor in software sales too.

Edited by SaltLife, Apr 17 2010, 4:44pm :

iamwhoiam said,

It was asked of someone to find a comparable PC for cheaper than a comparable Mac. It was done, and not the first time either. A challenge was made and he got called on it.

Well how about comparing apples with apples, instead of comparing a consumer class machine with a workstation class machine. As already pointed out the Mac Pro uses ECC registered memory as well as Xeon CPUs, which rightly or wrongly do cost more than their consumer counterparts be it at retail or wholesale.

The Mac Pro is probably the most costly machine of the Mac line up, but the term "over priced" is perceptive. If you need/want OS X, the price is irrelevant and as already pointed out the hardware is similar if not identical to PC machines so it's not as though you are losing out.

stevehoot said,

If an OS is worth $864 to you on a single PC (a non-server OS I should point out) then there is no hope and this discussion is over. For $864 of my own cash I'll happily use a flavor of Linux, Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows thanks.

You challenged the forum to find a PC that is cheaper than a comparable Mac. Jeddyb did this, and instead of conceeding you've moved onto the OS.

Both systems ship with a platform.

The comparision is fair and the Apple Mac is $864 MORE EXPENSIVE than the comparable PC.

Well done Jeddyb and thanks for using your time to prove the point many people already know, Mac's are overpriced.

Actually, I was the one who had asked. First, a core i7 and standard memory are not comparable. That would be as to compare (think back in the day) a Celeron to a Pentium along with SDRAM to DDR, two totally different classes. I don't disagree, you can make a similar system for a substantially less money, however with the given specs of their machines the price is adequate. (with THIER specs). My point being, I feel that the are priced adequately to what they provide. Not that we could build something 'almost' the same for less..

Now, Apple isn't alone in marking up PC sales. I know I could take almost any given HP/Dell and build my own machine for far less money, this is what got me into the business to begin with.

Sadly it does appear that Apple has a larger gap in it's margins as you pointed out $864. But, again, different class hardware.

Anyway, thanks for all of these replies. And enjoy

morphen said,
Nice, maybe we will start to see cheaper macs

no, they would just make the low end $999 the AMD system and claim its cheaper because of amd

morphen said,
Nice, maybe we will start to see cheaper macs

We won't see lower priced Macs, but Apple shareholders will see higher net income.

Joey H said,
We won't see lower priced Macs, but Apple shareholders will see higher net income.

+1. I seriously doubt they'd lower any of their prices being with AMD.

morphen said,
Nice, maybe we will start to see cheaper macs

No. They will pocket all the savings. The sorry iFanbase / macolytes will never get these savings passed to them.

I agree, although I'm not an AMD user this will certainly help, I feel sorry for AMD users and all the patches they need to get OS X working. I have near native OS X 10.6.3 working on my PC (core i5 750), the only problem I have is sound right now.

Whether Apple introducing AMD to their family will bring prices down (which I doubt) remains to be seen - of course.

IINexusII said,
this would help amd hackintosh users

Apple should just embrace the Hackintosh community. A lot of their "quibbles" would be solved.

thunderclap82 said,
Apple should just embrace the Hackintosh community. A lot of their "quibbles" would be solved.
But not their income, which is kinda more important.

Kirkburn said,
But not their income, which is kinda more important.
Says you. Not important at all to me..