undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmtgx8y ago0 comments

I'm actually quite surprised Apple didn't go with Ryzen/Threadripper already in their Mac Pros, considering what a huge multi-thousand dollar margins that would have offered them (at least if they went with the same absurd prices as the Xeon Mac Pros). And they could've still claimed a significant boost for their Mac Pro performance compared to the old Intel chip in the last generation.

They could've also replaced all of their dual-core laptops with quad-core Ryzen APUs for about 2-2.5x increase in both CPU multi-thread performance and GPU performance. And I don't think it would've cost them more, or not significantly more at least. AMD seems to price their cores at 50-60% of Intel's cores.

0 comments

bluGill8y ago

I would guess that Apple/Intel have a multi-year contract in place. Apple probably has a legal obligation to keep using Intel for the next couple years. There are many benefits that to both sides that can be put into a contract - different for each case.

flamedoge8y ago

Pricing and Volume most likely.

pault8y ago

Isn't thickness and therefore heat dissipation and power consumption paramount in Apple's laptop line? AMD struggles in all those areas as far as I know.

mtgxOP8y ago

AMD's latest chips and APUs are more efficient than Intel's. You should do a hard reset on everything you know about AMD's chips that is older than a year.

mark-r8y ago

I thought Ryzen was finally catching up in those areas? They certainly seem to be competitive in the desktop space.

mmrezaie8y ago

I would have liked to see that too but I assume one of the reasons can be porting the BIOS/UEFI and Chipset Drivers, and keep the quality the same as the one that they have already. AMD has done good on the hardware but they are not famous for being stable on the driver and software side.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse