I'm wondering if Nvidia are trying to get Apple to sign on the dotted line before Intel release the details of their graphics offering and conversely, Apple are stalling for time. Both Nvidia and ATI (AMD) are scared of what Intel can do if they put their resources into graphics as well (hand grenade springs to mind)
Nvidia sells far more products for non-Apple PCs than for Apple PCs. For Apple to change they will need OSX drivers which will take time to write and test. I'd definitely say Apple needs Nvidia more than the other way round.
"Nvidia needs Apple more than Apple needs Nvidia."
Thats a load of crap! And what else are Apple going to put in there higher spec machines? The Intel GPU offerings are awful compared to Nvidia, and I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon.
So the choice is nVidia or Intel? AMD don't get a look in? Come, Intel's GPUs are garbage, if Apple want to maintain their position as providers of high quality, gfx-focussed machines, they'll absolutely need to dal with either nVidia or AMD, Intel simply is not an option.
Apple absorbed NeXT and OS/X is Mach and still relies on Objective-C. Potentially at some point in time in the near future, Apple may start to enter the business market. (They are in some niche markets already.)
NVIDA's CUNA is a potential game shifter if Apple or someone creates easier libraries and ways to effectively utilize the GPUs for number crunching.
"The Intel GPU offerings are awful compared to Nvidia, and I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon." - Erm, why not? They've used ATI chips in the past, even, AFAIR, in Intel machines. So the drivers are or were there, and I'd assume that ATI kept writing the drivers when they were dumped for just such an emergency.
Re: Interesting, but Apple may still want NVIDIA #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:46 GMT
@Ian Michael Gumby, I think you're referring to nVidia's CUDA. With regards to Apple or someone creating an 'easier' way to utilise GPUs, have a look into OpenCL. It's a big part of Snow Leopard the next OS X update. My understanding is that it's something Apple initiated and have now pushed to become an open industry standard through the Khronos Group (responsible for things like OpenGL).
If the 1st gen doesn't compete, easy: sell apple CPUs with the northbridge bit and basic GPU on the core and give larrabee as a top-up as the 2nd chip. Same size motherboard, USP, same cost
Anonymous Coward
So Apple are making their piss poor overpriced systems even worse? #
'K' said "I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon".
Apple already use Radeon chips - they've always been a BTO option in the Mac Pros and they've used them in the iMacs as well from time to time. Apple are pretty much video card agnostic. Mac OS X therefore also already contains the relevant drivers for a bunch of Radeon architectures and they certainly have the expertise to write more if they need to.
I have no doubt whatsoever if they had/wanted to, they could switch to using Radeon chips at a model refresh without missing a beat.
It's a bit of relief to see so many others who know that Intel graphic chipsets are so awful.
I wish it could be complete relief, but knowing Apple used Intel's graphics to save money before means they might go back to that well, no matter how tainted the water.
But maybe if enough people let Steve know that they will not buy another Mac with Intel graphics . . . It's almost time for me to upgrade. If Apple does go back to Intel for graphics, I will by that (discounted) one-off model that still has the 9400/9600.
Also it's time to forgive AMD/ATI - As good as nVidia? Close at times. Better than Intel? Easily!
Apple 13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook (2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile, 2GB DDR3, 160GB HDD, DVD±RW DL, Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard, 13.3" LCD)
Apple MacBook Notebook (2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile, 2GB DDR3, 250GB HDD, DVD±RW DL, Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard, 13.3" LCD)
Apple iMac All-In-One Desktop (3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2, 1TB, DVD+-RW DL, Mac OS X v10.5 Snow Leopard, 27" LCD)
Apple iMac All-In-One Desktop (3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2, 500GB, DVD+-RW DL, Mac OS X v10.5 Snow Leopard, 21.5" LCD)
Apple 13.3" MacBook Air Notebook (1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile, 2GB DDR3, 120GB HDD, Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard, 13.3" LCD)
Apple nixing Nvidia from 'Nehalem' Macs?
Emo
AMD/ATI #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
Where's the love?
gizmo23
Larrabee #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
I'm wondering if Nvidia are trying to get Apple to sign on the dotted line before Intel release the details of their graphics offering and conversely, Apple are stalling for time. Both Nvidia and ATI (AMD) are scared of what Intel can do if they put their resources into graphics as well (hand grenade springs to mind)
Dave Murray
Nvidia needs Apple... #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
Rubbish.
Nvidia sells far more products for non-Apple PCs than for Apple PCs. For Apple to change they will need OSX drivers which will take time to write and test. I'd definitely say Apple needs Nvidia more than the other way round.
K
What? #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
"Nvidia needs Apple more than Apple needs Nvidia."
Thats a load of crap! And what else are Apple going to put in there higher spec machines? The Intel GPU offerings are awful compared to Nvidia, and I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon.
Richard 102
Interesting ... #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
... that Apple is singled out. I would suspect that all PC makers are going through a similar process, since it's really an Intel/NVidia thing.
And while it's true that NVidia did great things for Apple in the past, that was IN THE PAST. As I've heard, live in the is, not in the was.
Mine's the one with the confederate dollars in the pocket.
Frank Bough
Wot no AMD? #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:12 GMT
So the choice is nVidia or Intel? AMD don't get a look in? Come, Intel's GPUs are garbage, if Apple want to maintain their position as providers of high quality, gfx-focussed machines, they'll absolutely need to dal with either nVidia or AMD, Intel simply is not an option.
Ian Michael Gumby
Interesting, but Apple may still want NVIDIA #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 13:30 GMT
Apple absorbed NeXT and OS/X is Mach and still relies on Objective-C. Potentially at some point in time in the near future, Apple may start to enter the business market. (They are in some niche markets already.)
NVIDA's CUNA is a potential game shifter if Apple or someone creates easier libraries and ways to effectively utilize the GPUs for number crunching.
So I wouldn't count NVIDA out yet...
Robert Synnott
@K #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:46 GMT
"The Intel GPU offerings are awful compared to Nvidia, and I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon." - Erm, why not? They've used ATI chips in the past, even, AFAIR, in Intel machines. So the drivers are or were there, and I'd assume that ATI kept writing the drivers when they were dumped for just such an emergency.
Oli 5
Re: Interesting, but Apple may still want NVIDIA #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:46 GMT
@Ian Michael Gumby, I think you're referring to nVidia's CUDA. With regards to Apple or someone creating an 'easier' way to utilise GPUs, have a look into OpenCL. It's a big part of Snow Leopard the next OS X update. My understanding is that it's something Apple initiated and have now pushed to become an open industry standard through the Khronos Group (responsible for things like OpenGL).
Anonymous Coward
Larrabee? #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:46 GMT
If the 1st gen doesn't compete, easy: sell apple CPUs with the northbridge bit and basic GPU on the core and give larrabee as a top-up as the 2nd chip. Same size motherboard, USP, same cost
Anonymous Coward
So Apple are making their piss poor overpriced systems even worse? #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:46 GMT
FAIL indeed.
Intel graphics cards = 100% pure crap.
Jonathan White
RE: what? #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 15:51 GMT
'K' said "I can't see Apple switching to AMD / Radeon".
Apple already use Radeon chips - they've always been a BTO option in the Mac Pros and they've used them in the iMacs as well from time to time. Apple are pretty much video card agnostic. Mac OS X therefore also already contains the relevant drivers for a bunch of Radeon architectures and they certainly have the expertise to write more if they need to.
I have no doubt whatsoever if they had/wanted to, they could switch to using Radeon chips at a model refresh without missing a beat.
Jon
Thomas Bottrill
Embedded is the issue #
Posted Thursday 2nd July 2009 16:21 GMT
It's the integrated graphics that's the issue, not any standalone offering. Can you get an Core motherboard with an integrated Radeon processor?
Johnny Canuck
chipset #
Posted Friday 3rd July 2009 07:06 GMT
I think they are talking about the chipset, not the video.
Anonymous Coward
iMac Radeons #
Posted Friday 3rd July 2009 09:52 GMT
Can be specced with a Radeon 4850 as their highest GFX option.
Bill because that amount of choice with apple is just bonkers. (and the reason why I haven't bought a Mac)
Chasmoe
Whew, not alone! #
Posted Saturday 4th July 2009 10:12 GMT
It's a bit of relief to see so many others who know that Intel graphic chipsets are so awful.
I wish it could be complete relief, but knowing Apple used Intel's graphics to save money before means they might go back to that well, no matter how tainted the water.
But maybe if enough people let Steve know that they will not buy another Mac with Intel graphics . . . It's almost time for me to upgrade. If Apple does go back to Intel for graphics, I will by that (discounted) one-off model that still has the 9400/9600.
Also it's time to forgive AMD/ATI - As good as nVidia? Close at times. Better than Intel? Easily!