why Cell processor was not selected for Mac

[Guest]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23849


http://xlr8yourmac.com/

quote:
"Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple
evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM.
Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

The tested Cell as well. That processor is NOT intended for PC applications.
(it was designed for game systems, not as a general use CPU) The lack of out
of order execution and ILP control logic creates very poor performance with
existing software. Having developers rewrite for cell would have been MUCH
more work than reworking for Intel. And that's what this is, you rework your
codebase in ALL cases, not rewrite it. "

 

[epaton]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23849


http://xlr8yourmac.com/

quote:
"Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple
evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM.
Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

The tested Cell as well. That processor is NOT intended for PC
applications. (it was designed for game systems, not as a general use CPU)
The lack of out of order execution and ILP control logic creates very poor
performance with existing software. Having developers rewrite for cell
would have been MUCH more work than reworking for Intel. And that's what
this is, you rework your codebase in ALL cases, not rewrite it. "

i may be wrong but doesnt amd have a substanitaly larger share of the
computer market than apple, their ability to produce cheaply enough to
give apple big discounts but i guess amd will be happy enough with
the highend.

 

[Douglas Siebert]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23849


quote:
"Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple
evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM.
Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

Well, I'd think it'd be about Intel's compiler more than anything, since
by sticking with gcc Mac OS applications will run measurably slower than
Windows applications when running on like hardware. But unless Apple
has dumped that stupid Objective-C stuff, they are locked into gcc. Unless,
of course, Intel adds support for it to their compiler. I guess I wouldn't
be completely surprised if Intel's compiler supports it in the next rev...

 

[TravelinMan]

i may be wrong but doesnt amd have a substanitaly larger share of the
computer market than apple, their ability to produce cheaply enough to
give apple big discounts but i guess amd will be happy enough with
the highend.

While AMD's list price is lower than Intel's, look at Intel's profit vs.
AMD's. Intel can easily afford to give Apple a pretty good deal.

Dell steadfastly refuses to consider AMD. If Intel weren't competitive,
don't you think Dell (who does a better job than anyone of reducing
component costs) would look at them?

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Dell steadfastly refuses to consider AMD. If Intel weren't competitive,
don't you think Dell (who does a better job than anyone of reducing
component costs) would look at them?

Dell gets significant incentives from Intel to not use AMD chips. Even
so, they have periodic bouts of schizophrenia where AMD systems are
available for a few days before some exec finds out and shuts things
down.

S

 

[YKhan]

i may be wrong but doesnt amd have a substanitaly larger share of the
computer market than apple, their ability to produce cheaply enough to
give apple big discounts but i guess amd will be happy enough with
the highend.

Yup, AMD currently has 17% of the 200 million/year x86 CPU market,
which means that it is already producing close to 35 million CPUs a
year. A few years ago it was above 22% and heading towards 25% before
Intel pushed it back; not because AMD couldn't produce more but because
Intel started giving deals to OEMs to stop using AMD. AMD is expected
to head back towards 25% within the next 2-3 years, so that means 50
million/year. These production capacities are more than enough to
accomodate Apple's paltry 4 million/year requirement, hell it should be
more than enough to accomodate all of Dell's production requirements
too, if it ever wanted to fully supply Dell like Intel does currently.
But of course, it's not the production capacity that matters here, it's
the advertising support dollars that matter here.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

While AMD's list price is lower than Intel's, look at Intel's profit vs.
AMD's. Intel can easily afford to give Apple a pretty good deal.

Dell steadfastly refuses to consider AMD. If Intel weren't competitive,
don't you think Dell (who does a better job than anyone of reducing
component costs) would look at them?

It's considerably more complicated than just prices and capacity for
Dell. AMD should easily be able to supply all of Dell's needs if it was
ever asked to, it has the production capacity; it's estimated that AMD
can produce upto 50 million processors a year, and it is only producing
35 million currently. But Intel finances a big portion of Dell's
advertising too. If Intel didn't do that, then we'd never see a Dell
commercial on tv or in the papers or anywhere.

And actually these days, AMD's list prices aren't lower than Intel's,
they are mostly higher than Intel's. AMD has discovered the futility of
trying to compete with Intel on price, since Intel has a lot of
incentive programs to not use AMD. Therefore AMD has moved upscale of
Intel, deciding to sell processors for more money. For example, if you
look at the prices of Intel and AMD's dual core processors, Intel's
dual-core Pentium-D has a top-end price which is *less* than AMD's
lowest-end Athlon 64 X2.

Yousuf Khan

 

[ed]

In

AMD should easily be able to supply all of Dell's needs if it
was ever asked to, it has the production capacity; it's estimated
that AMD can produce upto 50 million processors a year, and it is
only producing 35 million currently.

i don't think i'd say that amd could easily-i'm not sure amd could reliably
produce enough processors for dell if they stopped shipping to everyone
else! and i don't think you understand the scale of dell's sales. dell had
almost 8 million unit shipments of pcs in q3 2004, 9 million in q4 2004, and
they're stll growing at a good clip.

And actually these days, AMD's list prices aren't lower than Intel's,
they are mostly higher than Intel's.

but historically amd has discounted significantly from their published
wholesale prices, while intel has not.

<snip>

 

[Kristoffer Lawson]

Well, I'd think it'd be about Intel's compiler more than anything, since
by sticking with gcc Mac OS applications will run measurably slower than
Windows applications when running on like hardware. But unless Apple
has dumped that stupid Objective-C stuff, they are locked into gcc. Unless,
of course, Intel adds support for it to their compiler. I guess I wouldn't
be completely surprised if Intel's compiler supports it in the next rev...

'Stupid' Objective-C stuff? I'm wondering if that is trolling. Objective C
is actually quite nice, or would you prefer C++?

 

[Tony Hill]

In

i don't think i'd say that amd could easily-i'm not sure amd could reliably
produce enough processors for dell if they stopped shipping to everyone
else! and i don't think you understand the scale of dell's sales. dell had
almost 8 million unit shipments of pcs in q3 2004, 9 million in q4 2004, and
they're stll growing at a good clip.

Dell sells about 30-35M PCs a year, the vast majority of which are
single-processor units. AMD's total output is 35M CPUs a year with
the possibility of increasing that to 50M. As such, AMD could quite
easily supply ALL of Dell's CPU requirements IFF they were AMD's only
customer.

In the real world though, it's extremely unlikely that Dell would go
100% AMD (even if they did start selling systems with AMD chips) and
even more doubtful that AMD could cut off the rest of the world just
to supply Dell.

In the real-world we would probably only be looking for Dell to be
selling at most 5M AMD processors any time in the semi-near future.
AMD would have no trouble at all providing that supply, without having
any significant impact on other major OEMs. The retail channel might
get a bit tight for a few months while they ramp production, but
that's about it.

There are reasons why Dell does not use AMD processors, but supply
worries are quite far down the list of those reasons. If anything
Dell is probably more vulnerable to processor supply problems by NOT
using AMD chips. By having only a single supplier for processors
(albeit a very large one) they are sometimes constrained by minor
glitches that Intel has. Getting a second supplier of processors
would allow them to spread the risk out such that they can use
promotional deals to help alleviate processor shortages from one
company or the other.

but historically amd has discounted significantly from their published
wholesale prices, while intel has not.

They haven't?!?! Do you know what sort of prices Dell pays for their
processors? I don't know exact numbers, but I can tell you for 100%
certain that it is a *LOT* less than what you or I would pay for a
chip. Part of AMD's problem is that there just isn't a noticeable
price advantage for major OEMs (ie HPaq and Dell) to use their chips.
When it comes down to a question of paying $50 for an Athlon64 vs. $52
or $53 for a P4, the difference in component cost can quickly get
washed away by any other advantages/disadvantages. If AMD wants to
compete they need to do so based on performance and features, not just
cost.

Fortunately for AMD, they have Intel beat hands-down for all desktop,
workstation and server processors. Intel's only saving grace is that
their laptop chips are decent, though even here their lead is
definitely not what it used to be.

 

[ed]

In

Dell sells about 30-35M PCs a year, the vast majority of which are
single-processor units. AMD's total output is 35M CPUs a year with
the possibility of increasing that to 50M. As such, AMD could quite
easily supply ALL of Dell's CPU requirements IFF they were AMD's only
customer.

umm, yeah, all that's covered above. =D

They haven't?!?! Do you know what sort of prices Dell pays for their
processors? I don't know exact numbers, but I can tell you for 100%
certain that it is a *LOT* less than what you or I would pay for a
chip.

and you think we pay wholesale prices, why?

Part of AMD's problem is that there just isn't a noticeable
price advantage for major OEMs (ie HPaq and Dell) to use their chips.
When it comes down to a question of paying $50 for an Athlon64 vs. $52
or $53 for a P4, the difference in component cost can quickly get
washed away by any other advantages/disadvantages. If AMD wants to
compete they need to do so based on performance and features, not just
cost.

yes, i was probably talking about the athlon64s when i said "historically".
<rolls eyes>

<snip>

 

[Charles Jo]

Yup, AMD currently has 17% of the 200 million/year x86 CPU market,
which means that it is already producing close to 35 million CPUs a
year. A few years ago it was above 22% and heading towards 25% before
Intel pushed it back; not because AMD couldn't produce more but because
Intel started giving deals to OEMs to stop using AMD. AMD is expected
to head back towards 25% within the next 2-3 years, so that means 50
million/year. These production capacities are more than enough to
accomodate Apple's paltry 4 million/year requirement, hell it should be
more than enough to accomodate all of Dell's production requirements
too, if it ever wanted to fully supply Dell like Intel does currently.
But of course, it's not the production capacity that matters here, it's
the advertising support dollars that matter here.

Yousuf Khan

Both Apple and Intel are good in advertising. I am curious to see what
the commericials will look like for these boxes.

CharlesJo.com

 

[Tony Hill]

and you think we pay wholesale prices, why?

Obviously not, but we aren't paying much more than wholesale, the
markup on things like CPUs is crap. Also, how are you defining the
term "wholesale"? Intel and AMD define their prices according to
buying a tray of 1000 units. Here are their respective price lists:

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301


If you go to a decent on-line vendor you will probably find that we're
paying pretty close to those prices for the processors (with a few
exceptions, such as right now there is a big price-premium for
dual-core chips). Now obviously the actual price that a distributor
will pay for chips is going to be somewhat less then the prices listed
since there is SOME markup, but the difference isn't huge.


As for Dell and HP, I don't have exact numbers of what they pay, but
what I've seen suggests that they are almost certainly paying less
than 1/2 of the above-mentioned prices, possibly quite a bit less.

yes, i was probably talking about the athlon64s when i said "historically".
<rolls eyes>

Fine, substitute AthlonXP vs. P4, or hell K6-2 vs. PII into the above
if you like, the story doesn't change much.

The point I'm trying to get across is that Dell and HP pay
SIGNIFICANTLY less than what any distributor or wholesaler operation
do.

 

[ed]

In

Obviously not, but we aren't paying much more than wholesale, the
markup on things like CPUs is crap. Also, how are you defining the
term "wholesale"? Intel and AMD define their prices according to
buying a tray of 1000 units. Here are their respective price lists:

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301


If you go to a decent on-line vendor you will probably find that we're
paying pretty close to those prices for the processors (with a few
exceptions, such as right now there is a big price-premium for
dual-core chips). Now obviously the actual price that a distributor
will pay for chips is going to be somewhat less then the prices listed
since there is SOME markup, but the difference isn't huge.

from what i understand, if you buy 1000 units, intel's prices are going to
be pretty close to those prices. amd's is going to be much less. at least
this used to be the case.

As for Dell and HP, I don't have exact numbers of what they pay, but
what I've seen suggests that they are almost certainly paying less
than 1/2 of the above-mentioned prices, possibly quite a bit less.

that's because they buy much more than 1000 pieces a pop.

Fine, substitute AthlonXP vs. P4, or hell K6-2 vs. PII into the above
if you like, the story doesn't change much.

i know for a fact that in the pii days, what i'm saying is correct, and what
you're saying is wrong. me and some friends used to have a little side
business in college, and buying from our wholesaler in units of several
dozen at a time, we could get prices much cheaper than amd's list prices for
1k units, but that wasn't the case w/ intel chips.

 

[George Macdonald]

In

from what i understand, if you buy 1000 units, intel's prices are going to
be pretty close to those prices. amd's is going to be much less. at least
this used to be the case.

But it's not the case now. I don't buy in 1000s but if you check the
prices at on-line vendors the boxed A64s are often selling for higher than
AMD's PIB list and OEM models are not significantly lower... in fact they
have sometimes been higher recently.

The A64 3500+(Venice) I bought last week was the same price I paid for a
3500+(Winchester) last November. AMD's prices are holding very well.

 

[Bruce Hoult]

'Stupid' Objective-C stuff? I'm wondering if that is trolling. Objective C
is actually quite nice, or would you prefer C++?

Fortunately you don't have to choose. Just rename your ObjC files to
..mm instead of .m and go ahead and use C++ features for your engine
stuff and ObjC for your UI stuff. A little ugly but works well.

 

[ed]

But it's not the case now. I don't buy in 1000s but if you check the
prices at on-line vendors the boxed A64s are often selling for higher than
AMD's PIB list and OEM models are not significantly lower... in fact they
have sometimes been higher recently.

that doesn't show anything to prove or disprove the point.

The A64 3500+(Venice) I bought last week was the same price I paid for a
3500+(Winchester) last November. AMD's prices are holding very well.

irrelevant to how the prices for those parts compare to list prices in
quantity.

 

[YKhan]

i don't think i'd say that amd could easily-i'm not sure amd could reliably
produce enough processors for dell if they stopped shipping to everyone
else! and i don't think you understand the scale of dell's sales. dell had
almost 8 million unit shipments of pcs in q3 2004, 9 million in q4 2004, and
they're stll growing at a good clip.

Well sure, that's what I meant: if AMD needed to, AMD could stop
supplying everybody else and supply just Dell. But AMD is not likely to
ever do something like that; and it's also not likely Dell would need
them to. However, Dell always talks like as if they expect AMD to be
able to supply their entire chip needs. It's not AMD that talks like
that, it's Dell. That's their favourite excuse for not using AMD chips
-- i.e. they can't supply our entire lineup. However, AMD should be
able to supply 10% of Dell's lineup, maybe even upto 25% of their
entire lineup.

but historically amd has discounted significantly from their published
wholesale prices, while intel has not.

Nope, they all discount from published wholesale, based on volume. The
more trays of 1000 that you buy, the less you pay per tray. It's the
same for both Intel and AMD. That's just standard business practice.

However, historically, AMD has always charged less for the
non-discounted prices than Intel. That is until recently, when it's
non-discounted prices have exceeded Intel's.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

Both Apple and Intel are good in advertising. I am curious to see what
the commericials will look like for these boxes.

Probably they'll start off by assassinating a bunnyman, followed by a
bunnyman running across the screen at the end with the Intel jingle.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

that doesn't show anything to prove or disprove the point.

What it proves is that retail CPUs are holding price, for ~6 months and
even OEM processors are not being dumped on the market at knock-down
prices. What it proves is that your scenario *is* History.