NC37Not really. Apple and AMD have been buddies on a lot of things recently. Intel has not supplied the performance on the GPU front to Apple's liking either. Plus there has been some friction as Intel behaves like...Intel.

Last year it was posted that Apple was indeed looking into APUs but wasn't satisfied with Llano. Trinity would be a likely choice. Apple sure isn't going to do a $700 laptop with Intel without really delivering poor performance. Competitors would have a big edge since they already have i7s in the same price bracket.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Trinity make a big debut in Apple machines with a lot of deals between Apple and AMD. If Apple wants it enough, they'll push for it and I don't see AMD saying "no" to Apple right now. A deal like that would also help AMD gain a lot of attention. Both sides would come out winner with a Trinitybook. Heck I'd buy one.

This doesn’t change the fact that Apple went with Intel solutions for CPU / GPU with their current generation of Mac Book Air products and therefore Apple’s needs and standards were met. Intel Ivy Bridge and its included Intel HD 4000 graphics is a very likely future hardware configuration for next gen Mac Book Air (or some subset / derivative). This allows for a progression (improvement) of the graphics even if it is incremental.

The focus of the Mac Book Air isn’t excellent graphics. I don’t think people who are buying such products want or need the graphics people are suggesting here. Sometimes its easy to get cough up in the product one wants rather then the product niche that is on offer.

BTW, with Intel Thunderbolt, its theoretically possible to provide desktop like GPU performance with an external card,...but again I dont think AIR focuses on users who want this type of graphics.

Also, its $799 or ~$800 not $700.

Still anything could happen I guess. Apple did drop nVidia like a bad habit so they are apt to do an about-face whenever it suits them.

OctaveanThe focus of the Mac Book Air isn’t excellent graphics. I don’t think people who are buying such products want or need the graphics people are suggesting here. Sometimes its easy to get cough up in the product one wants rather then the product niche that is on offer.

Still anything could happen I guess. Apple did drop nVidia like a bad habit so they are apt to do an about-face whenever it suits them.

There are strong rumors stating Apple had considered AMD options up until last minute, including working prototypes.

However, for the current CPU power, AMD is failing miserably in the Power consumption and actual computing power. The -only- current reason is GPU power. Of which holds little value, for a MBA design. Apple isn't trying to pretend it can play games, its just flat out not intended to. It's intended to be ultra portable, providing as much as they can within their portability baseline.

Granted, the intel HD video barely squeaks past Apple's approval, because it really is awful, AMD just cannot compete currently.

Jobs is turning in his grave right now.

DippyskoodlezThere are strong rumors stating Apple had considered AMD options up until last minute, including working prototypes.

However, for the current CPU power, AMD is failing miserably in the Power consumption and actual computing power. The -only- current reason is GPU power. Of which holds little value, for a MBA design. Apple isn't trying to pretend it can play games, its just flat out not intended to. It's intended to be ultra portable, providing as much as they can within their portability baseline.

Granted, the intel HD video barely squeaks past Apple's approval, because it really is awful, AMD just cannot compete currently.

with trinity amd went a long way in terms of efficiency, and note that graphics with gpgpu capability is a totaly win for apple, since apple has its inhouse mac os and can optimize and its software much easier, in other words apple can take advantage of open cl much faster than the rest of the industry mostly because the rest of the industry is led by many other players/factors while apple pretty much runs the show for mac os
also with adobe CS6 supporting opencl i wont be surprised at all ;) if anyone buys apple its the graphic designers! and with open cl support/acceleration on cs6 graphic designers will be very pleased with an amd APU

Come on guys, don't take it too serious about atom stuff, I'm just kidding :laugh:
Btw if they realy make $800 macbook with i5, it will be nice, but I think it still unworthy if they just go with i3 and integrated graphics.

sergionographywith trinity amd went a long way in terms of efficiency, and note that graphics with gpgpu capability is a totaly win for apple, since apple has its inhouse mac os and can optimize and its software much easier, in other words apple can take advantage of open cl much faster than the rest of the industry mostly because the rest of the industry is led by many other players/factors while apple pretty much runs the show for mac os
also with adobe CS6 supporting opencl i wont be surprised at all ;) if anyone buys apple its the graphic designers! and with open cl support/acceleration on cs6 graphic designers will be very pleased with an amd APU

I’m sure Intel has AMD hardware somewhere in the bowels of their labs, I’m sure Microsoft has Linux distributions and Mac hardware in their labs. Apple likely has Windows running in some of their labs as well. All of it can be justified as well but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will see products come to market because of it (although we likely do in many cases such as iTunes for Windows for example).

Generally speaking it isn’t surprising IMO for Apple to evaluate AMD hardware and to develop early prototypes for in-house evaluation.

I may have said before, its been rumored that Apple will be releasing iOS on an ARM device in a Mac Book Air form factor but it has also been rumored that Apple will migrate OS X to ARM hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has this running in labs now but again that doesn’t mean we will ever see product released. But then again it was also rumored that Apple was moving OS X to an x86 platform and that did come to pass,…

OctaveanI may have said before, its been rumored that Apple will be releasing iOS on an ARM device in a Mac Book Air form factor but it has also been rumored that Apple will migrate OS X to ARM hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has this running in labs now but again that doesn’t mean we will ever see product released. But then again it was also rumored that Apple was moving OS X to an x86 platform and that did come to pass,…

TBH its not really much of a rumor. ARM is just pitifully weak, compared to x86. Once it hits critical mass, it will happen. Theres already many parallel tracks from Apple and Microsoft to migrate.

Just a matter of hardware catching up now.

DippyskoodlezTBH its not really much of a rumor. ARM is just pitifully weak, compared to x86. Once it hits critical mass, it will happen. Theres already many parallel tracks from Apple and Microsoft to migrate.

Just a matter of hardware catching up now.

I don’t like to talk in terms of absolutes if I can help it,……most of the time that is. I much prefer probabilities and likelihoods.

I don’t have a crystal ball with the ability to look into the future so I wont say, for example, that Ivy Bridge will definitely be the bases of the next gen Mac Book Air. I’ll just say, given the history of Apple’s recent products, it is very likely that Ivy Bridge will be the platform of choice for the Mac Book Air as well as the Mac Book Pro, iMac and Mac Mini. Clearly not the iPad though,….for obvious reasons.

In terms of ARM and its future I suspect it looks very bright. ARM will probably spread like a virus. However, Intel is clearly looking to derail the ARM initiative by hook or by crook. Intel clearly isn’t all powerful but they have quite a bit of money and a vested interest motivating them so I wouldn’t be keen on counting those chickens before they have hatched. Intel is definitely looking to provide alternatives to the ARM platform and stem the tide. I personally wouldn’t want a company with Intel’s resources breathing down my neck.

Even if they are tardy to the party, Intel knows their prosperity could be in serious gyp-parody,…I mean “jeopardy”.

I’m not a betting man so I wouldn’t care to wager either way because what seems like a sure thing may not be.

OctaveanI’m sure Intel has AMD hardware somewhere in the bowels of their labs, I’m sure Microsoft has Linux distributions and Mac hardware in their labs. Apple likely has Windows running in some of their labs as well. All of it can be justified as well but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will see products come to market because of it (although we likely do in many cases such as iTunes for Windows for example).

Generally speaking it isn’t surprising IMO for Apple to evaluate AMD hardware and to develop early prototypes for in-house evaluation.

I may have said before, its been rumored that Apple will be releasing iOS on an ARM device in a Mac Book Air form factor but it has also been rumored that Apple will migrate OS X to ARM hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has this running in labs now but again that doesn’t mean we will ever see product released. But then again it was also rumored that Apple was moving OS X to an x86 platform and that did come to pass,…

well with intel going all out in marketing ultrabooks its just suspicious, especialy in the statements were they said "apple has to decide whether the macbook air is an ultrabook or not" and its like whaa? intel pretty much described the mac book air, and marketed it as ultrabook as their own. and such a move seems like a threat to apple which makes you wonder why, probably because intel felt that apple is getting too close to amd so they got quickly countered

sergionographywell with intel going all out in marketing ultrabooks its just suspicious, especialy in the statements were they said "apple has to decide whether the macbook air is an ultrabook or not" and its like whaa? intel pretty much described the mac book air, and marketed it as ultrabook as their own. and such a move seems like a threat to apple which makes you wonder why, probably because intel felt that apple is getting too close to amd so they got quickly countered

The Mac Book Air is based on Intel hardware. If anything Apple is marketing Intel hardware as its own not the other way around. Switching to AMD would be no different in this respect. ARM as well, jumping from one skillet (frying pan or in this case manufacturer) to the next doesn’t change the fact that Apple is basing their products on another companies technology.

You have a point though, there were similar rumblings in the industry before Microsoft announced their Windows on ARM initiative. Companies don’t always get along though even if they are in bed together.

Easy Rhinoi understand the business strategy of entering into your competitors market to lower their sales, but are people really looking forward to windows 8? i mean seriously...

I know I'm not.. Use to be a day, when I looked forward to a new OS. Now it's like looking forward to a new line of CPU's... Minimal improvements, big price increases.. Not worth it..

OctaveanThe Mac Book Air is based on Intel hardware. If anything Apple is marketing Intel hardware as its own not the other way around. Switching to AMD would be no different in this respect. ARM as well, jumping from one skillet (frying pan or in this case manufacturer) to the next doesn’t change the fact that Apple is basing their products on another companies technology.

This is what apple wants, and needs.

Unlike HP/Dell/Etc, Apple is in it to sell the product experience, not just the hardware which is why so many people have a lot of issues with apple products.

More competition in the Ultrabook space forces innovation in hardware. Apple saw a unique way to utilize Intel's CPU's, took advantage of it, and intel was like "Hey! thats a fantastic idea!" and is now trying to improve it. Since the PC market will never actually innovate themselves, intel is trying to force their hand.

DippyskoodlezThis is what apple wants, and needs.

Unlike HP/Dell/Etc, Apple is in it to sell the product experience, not just the hardware which is why so many people have a lot of issues with apple products.

More competition in the Ultrabook space forces innovation in hardware. Apple saw a unique way to utilize Intel's CPU's, took advantage of it, and intel was like "Hey! thats a fantastic idea!" and is now trying to improve it. Since the PC market will never actually innovate themselves, intel is trying to force their hand.

I think Intel is keenly aware of what their own hardware and designs are capable of. I don’t think Apple did anything Intel wasn’t already well informed of in terms of the possibilities. Intel’s Ultrabook initiative isn’t very different from its Netbook initiative in that Intel never really had to get as involved as they did, they only needed to provide the platform (Processors, chipsets, recommended designs and so on).

You cannot build something like the Mac Book Air around a cinder block brick, Intel knows this and Apple knows it.

OctaveanI think Intel is keenly aware of what their own hardware and designs are capable of. I don’t think Apple did anything Intel wasn’t already well informed of in terms of the possibilities. Intel’s Ultrabook initiative isn’t very different from its Netbook initiative in that Intel never really had to get as involved as they did, they only needed to provide the platform (Processors, chipsets, recommended designs and so on).

You cannot build something like the Mac Book Air around a cinder block brick, Intel knows this and Apple knows it.

well i know for a fact that apple was pissed off when intel blocked nvidia from making chipsets, because by doing so they were sorta cornered to use whatever intel wants or offers.
as much as we would like to deny things, intel IS almost running a monopoly, or keeps trying to do so, and is normal with capitalism as the main goal in competition is to knock the rival out and dominate the market, intel never succeeded in a complete monopoly but they sure had a monopoly with netbooks and ultrabooks untill amd came to the show and made brazos and now trinity for ULV

either way i would like to see OEM's rebelling a bit against intel to force it to change its ways a bit, we need better prices and more co-operation with the rest of the tech industry to bring out better platforms and technology
amd seem to be going in that approach with their decision to sell/buy IP with the rest of the industry and i think that is a move in the right direction as it benefits everyone

sergionographywell i know for a fact that apple was pissed off when intel blocked nvidia from making chipsets, because by doing so they were sorta cornered to use whatever intel wants or offers.
as much as we would like to deny things, intel IS almost running a monopoly, or keeps trying to do so, and is normal with capitalism as the main goal in competition is to knock the rival out and dominate the market, intel never succeeded in a complete monopoly but they sure had a monopoly with netbooks and ultrabooks untill amd came to the show and made brazos and now trinity for ULV

either way i would like to see OEM's rebelling a bit against intel to force it to change its ways a bit, we need better prices and more co-operation with the rest of the tech industry to bring out better platforms and technology
amd seem to be going in that approach with their decision to sell/buy IP with the rest of the industry and i think that is a move in the right direction as it benefits everyone

Well I would like to see more competition in this space too as it seems Intel is running virtually uncontested in such a high profile segment of the industry, which filters down to other corners of the industry as well (even if only in mindshare).

Competition on Intel's own platforms don't mean much to me though. While nVidia had some really interesting Intel chipsets there were some fairly poor ones from other manufactures. Third party chipsets have the potential to reflect poorly on Intel and it's this principle that helps justify (at least in my mind) the direction that Intel has taken. However, third party chipsets would at least diversify the gen pool so that chipset recalls (like the P67) wouldn't necessarily holdback the platform.

I don't know about companies like AMD, they aren't on the track I would like to see them on, at least not entirely.

OctaveanWell I would like to see more competition in this space too as it seems Intel is running virtually uncontested in such a high profile segment of the industry, which filters down to other corners of the industry as well (even if only in mindshare).

Competition on intel's own platforms don't mean much to me though. While nVidia had some really interesting Intel chipsets there were some fairly poor ones from other manufactures. Third party chipsets have the potential to reflect poorly on Intel and it's this principle that helps justify (at least in my mind) the direction that Intel has taken. However, third party chipsets would at least diversify the gen pool so that chipset recalls (like the P67) wouldn't necessarily holdback the platform.

I don't know about companies like AMD, they aren't on the track I would like to see them on, at least not entirely.

well right now AMD's approach is to cooperate with the rest of the industry with solutions/technologies and move forward in harmony, and everyone benefits, thats what i understood with their opening their ip for third party move
intel on the other hand just wants to freaking dominate everything and use its platform to force even their poor products
so there was an ssd and memory movement? intel started making ssd's and are not forcing ssd's in order to be able to label an "ultrabook" which opens up a market they may benefit from, nvidia made motherboards? they cut that off and kept it inhouse only, which forced the industry to use their HORRIBLE graphics solution, and nvidia lost so much market share in the low end discrete graphics and that pretty much brought the whole graphics standard of the industry down as OEMs now have to supply intel chipsets in order to use intel cpu's and it would cost more to get nvidia or amd discrete graphics, when before they can just use an nvidia chipset that pretty much cost the same or even less than an intel chipset AND had much better graphics
and just a few weeks ago i saw an article about intel demanding high res screens in 2013-2014 when haswell and broadwell come out. why not now?? oh wait, because intel graphics arent capable! had it been up to nvidia or amd we would be running much higher resolutions already

I bet it'll be Trinity powered. Didn't AMD just come to Apple's defense against Samsung in a patent dispute?