They still list Ryzen 9 on pruduct page too;
www.lenovo.com/il/en/laptops/yoga/yoga-s-series/Yoga-Slim-7-14ARE05/p/88YGS701397

I think AMD is just waiting for Inte'ls response to Ryzen 4000 and then drop the bomb :-).
Ryzen 9 will give AMD a nice margins as a premium product.

HwGeekThey still list Ryzen 9 on pruduct page too;
www.lenovo.com/il/en/laptops/yoga/yoga-s-series/Yoga-Slim-7-14ARE05/p/88YGS701397

I think AMD is just waiting for Inte'ls response to Ryzen 4000 and then drop the bomb :).
Ryzen 9 will give AMD a nice margins as a premium product.

Wonder, how different it will be in comparison to the 4800U. Will the iGPU graphics units be increased? Probably cause it is same 8c16t. Maybe the frequency will be higher.

HwGeekThey still list Ryzen 9 on pruduct page too;
www.lenovo.com/il/en/laptops/yoga/yoga-s-series/Yoga-Slim-7-14ARE05/p/88YGS701397

I think AMD is just waiting for Inte'ls response to Ryzen 4000 and then drop the bomb :).
Ryzen 9 will give AMD a nice margins as a premium product.

The problem is that Ryzen 9 can really differ from Ryzen 7 only by higher clocks. Cores are maxed and SMT supported on Ryzen 7, GPU could in theory have more than 8 CUs if the Renoir physically has more than 8 CUs but that remains to be seen.

I could see Apple creating a new "Premium" product line with AMD CPUs not to be in potential breach of contract with Intel.

Apple's marketing department would have to no trouble creating a new product brand with a more "Premium" image than PRO with new AMD CPUs across the whole product spectrum running faster and cooler.

yakkApple's marketing department would have to no trouble creating a new product brand with a more "Premium" image than PRO with new AMD CPUs across the whole product spectrum running faster and cooler.

"cooler" - very unlikely
"faster" - unknown

Being a fan of AMD is one thing. But man, you're flying really high.
Next gen (2020) MacBooks will use 10th gen Intel CPUs.
And by the time Apple finalizes specs for 2021, Tiger Lake U will be around. And it's not like Intel couldn't make 8-core Ice Lake U if Apple orders that...

AMD is categorically cooler since Ryzen launched, in part due to the lower clocks & solder, besides also being way ahead at the high end. So technically he's right.

notb10th gen Intel CPUs.

Which 10th gen, you do know what Intel's done with their BS naming scheme?

notbfor 2021, Tiger Lake U will be around

Greeted by Van Gogh & more cores.

ARFApple's market cap is 1,420B USD, while its supplier's market cap is only 287B USD.
Or in other words, how can a supplier 1/5th the size of Apple dictate them what to buy and punish them with penalties??

It doesn't work even remotely like that.

This is good news. I hope Apple starts offering Ryzen CPUs as an option. More options are good for consumers.

R0H1Tsolder

Technically this doesn't matter since if you take even Intel notebooks apart there's no heat spreader, the heat pipe assembly is basically right on the die.

Wow who wouldn't be surprise if Apple wasn't trying to test/R&D AMD offerings! Any smart company has to be looking at them and how viable they could use them in a platform or various offerings. Seeing driver code does mean much other than they're probably running stuff that is more "trials" (before pre-production). As to "Finally Buying AMD CPUs?" that's a stretch probably barely in the word/world of being optimistic...

shompaFor companies like Apple/Dell/HP there is no reason to move to AMD. These large companies have huge rebates from Intel in the 50% range. That's why we home builders CANT build cheaper using the exact same parts. intel also pays 300-400 million dollars each year in "design fees" to OEMs. AMD does not play that games today.

AMD have been able to land major OEM deals for years, but primarily for low-end GPUs. If they want major OEM deals for CPUs they need one thing; volume. AMD can't even keep the "tiny" market of custom builders fed, so they need a lot more production capacity to grow in the OEM market, which is something I would welcome.

shompaIf you like fast CPUs/innovation. Let's hope Apple instead finally announces ARM Macs / and or RISC V stuff.

ARM is not nearly performant enough for anything but low performance computing devices (like phones). RISC V is a "toy project", it has no chance to become competitive with x86 performance wise, even in 10 years. RISC V doesn't even have modern instructions like conditional moves, so performance will be terrible. And like ARM, it will go the custom route (even further in fact), and will require special firmware in the OS just to run.

shompaThe reason why Apple also killed 32bit apps are for ARM/RISC V migration. X86 uses 64bit extensions. Not real/optimized 64bit. Intel/AMD cant remove the 32bit ISA in the CPU without breaking their CPUs. Apple removed the 32bit ISA 3+ years ago on their ARM stuff.

This is pure BS. x86-64("AMD64") was redesigned as a fully 64-bit ISA with registers and everything.

shompaInstead, they could put on 2 more cores. X86 needs to die. Its 50 years old and people think it's normal that CPUs cost 300+ dollars + motherboard tax 100 dollars.

Yet again you demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
x86 will not be killed off until we have something better, and we don't have that yet. The whole RISC vs. CISC argument was pretty much defeated back in the early 90s when x86 designs moved to micro-operations, achieving the best of RISC and CISC in one. All current x86 microarchitectures use their own custom internal instruction set, so this claim that they use a 50 year old instruction set is just plainly wrong.

windwhirlStrange, I thought Apple was moving away from x86 to Arm...

ARM is not going to come close to x86 performance wise. ARM does by design use more instructions to do the same basic work, and most of the x86 ISA improvements since the early 90s involves instructions which does more work, and if ARM is ever going to compete with this it needs to become CISC. The future advancements for x86 involves even more advanced instructions; including for "threadlets" and more SIMD. The original arguments in RISC vs. CISC wasn't really about x86 vs. ARM, but the old specialized mainframe instruction sets used in the 70s. The argument back then was that you could make a simpler CPU and just run it at higher clocks to achieve the same performance, while costing much less die space. But this was not really relevant for comparison with x86, this was targeting those intricate mainframe CPU architectures of the time. Today we all know that clock speed scaling will be limited by the power wall regardless of instruction set, so most of the "advantages" of RISC is already gone. Right now the only major advantage that remains is for low-power devices which don't really need performance.

All current ARM-based CPUs rely heavily on specialized hardware accelerated features to do any real work, much more than x86 CPUs, otherwise your phone, your tablet, your blu-ray player and your "smart-TV" wouldn't stand a chance to do their intended work. When it comes to general purpose high-performance workloads, ARM doesn't stand a chance vs. x86, which is why we don't see it in "high performance" laptops and desktops. So to answer your question; Apple will not move to ARM until they decide to kill off their "real" computers, which may happen eventually considering how they keep undermining their own products for professionals/prosumers.

shompaApple tried to source AMD in 2009. AMD simply could not deliver the number of CPUs needed.
AMD cant even today supply enough 12 core/16 Ryzen 3 and today is different since AMD simply could order more wafer starts.

If Apple would use AMD, it would be a custom solution like the PS5/Xbox Series X chip since macOS is GPU accelerated since 2002.

For companies like Apple/Dell/HP there is no reason to move to AMD. These large companies have huge rebates from Intel in the 50% range. That's why we home builders CANT build cheaper using the exact same parts. intel also pays 300-400 million dollars each year in "design fees" to OEMs. AMD does not play that games today.

If you like fast CPUs/innovation. Let's hope Apple instead finally announces ARM Macs / and or RISC V stuff. MacOS Darwin opensource port posted ARM ports for A10 SoCs years ago, so Apple has working macOS for ARM if they want. The developer tools are ready. The reason why Apple also killed 32bit apps are for ARM/RISC V migration. X86 uses 64bit extensions. Not real/optimized 64bit. Intel/AMD cant remove the 32bit ISA in the CPU without breaking their CPUs. Apple removed the 32bit ISA 3+ years ago on their ARM stuff. Instead, they could put on 2 more cores. X86 needs to die. Its 50 years old and people think it's normal that CPUs cost 300+ dollars + motherboard tax 100 dollars. Just a hint: Ryzen3 cost less to manufacture than A13 / A12X. Still, experts think SoCs cost 25 dollars but CPUs have 300+ dollar value.

Apple only needs dual cores anyway lol. Dumb dumbs can't get enough 1-2k dollar duallies.

Does anyone know where these strings were located? If it's just in the AMD graphics drivers it could be cross-platform lists of GPU IDs that's getting included. If it's in other files, though, then it becomes significantly more interesting.

I will believe it, when I see it. Apple's relationship with Intel has historically been very strong. Apple has also historically been fickle in these regards, though, so there's that.

thetyrantcbassDoes anyone know where these strings were located? If it's just in the AMD graphics drivers it could be cross-platform lists of GPU IDs that's getting included. If it's in other files, though, then it becomes significantly more interesting.

Not sure about the latest ones, but the same guy that found them also found some references in an earlier beta version, in Apple's Metal API.
Amd/comments/dzbr6t
Apple did something similar with Mac OS X during the PowerPC era. While users only saw PowerPC machines, Apple secretly tested Mac OS X on x86 computers. Ultimately, when IBM couldn't provide the performance that Apple demanded, Macs simply switched to Intel.

However, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. For all we know, it's just a backup plan for a backup plan, or maybe the strings could have been brought into the code by pure chance or some other unknown reason.

TheGuruStudApple only needs dual cores anyway lol. Dumb dumbs can't get enough 1-2k dollar duallies.

To be fair, a good chunk of people that buy apple products just use them for web browsing. My school district was almost exclusively Mac for years with the exception of our CAD/Business labs. With the exception of our graphics computers running the Adobe suite, nothing was being used that couldn't be handled by a dual core.

edit: not saying that's good justification, but....

Apple uses X86-64 just like we Windows users use. Apple does optimize their software better, but "only needs dual cores anyway lol" is just pure bs.

Chloe PriceApple uses X86-64 just like we Windows users use. Apple does optimize their software better, but "only needs dual cores anyway lol" is just pure bs.

It's fact. 99% of apple users do nothing with it and apple is happy to sell them a turd product for insane amounts of money. So, why would they need more than dual cores when that's what is going to be bought? Not many wafers are needed for that.

TheGuruStudIt's fact. 99% of apple users do nothing with it and apple is happy to sell them a turd product for insane amounts of money.

Umm... no?

I know that some idiots buy Macs just because it's Apple and it's cool to have one and they just use it to browse Facebook, but that's the 1%, not the 99%.

Chloe PriceUmm... no?

I know that some idiots buy Macs just because it's Apple and it's cool to have one and they just use it to browse Facebook, but that's the 1%, not the 99%.

I don't think you've met college dummies. They continue the behavior afterwards, too. Hell, it's highschool, too, now.

TheGuruStudI don't think you've met college dummies.

No, but I've met teens who still think Apple products as a status symbol.

Chloe PriceApple uses X86-64 just like we Windows users use. Apple does optimize their software better, but "only needs dual cores anyway lol" is just pure bs.

True.

And besides, the only dual core Macs left today are the Macbook Air and the lower-end 21.5-inch iMac. And the latter one you can configure it up to 6 cores.

Granted, 1100 US dollars for a dual core laptop feels excessive.

windwhirlTrue.

And besides, the only dual core Macs left today are the Macbook Air and the lower-end 21.5-inch iMac. And the latter one you can configure it up to 6 cores.

Granted, 1100 US dollars for a dual core laptop feels excessive.

I just wonder why Intel still sells dual cores branded as i5s.

Hell, I thought that those are pure ripoff when the first 2c/4t Clarkdale 32nm i5s were released in 2010, the i5-600 series.

That's just leftovers from the cross-platform AMD driver.

R0H1TAMD is categorically cooler since Ryzen launched, in part due to the lower clocks & solder, besides also being way ahead at the high end. So technically he's right.
Which 10th gen, you do know what Intel's done with their BS naming scheme?

Why is that important here? The point is: this gen is going to use Intel.
My bet: Comet Lake @14nm.

Greeted by Van Gogh & more cores.

Nope. Still 8 at AMD camp. Not that it makes sense in 15W anyway.

Chloe PriceI just wonder why Intel still sells dual cores branded as i5s.

That's a very simple question. Because someone buys them.