Why doesn't apple use amd cpu's?

>>61600705
They need the best.

>>61600705
Because of Intel's special "rebates"

Next refreshes they will

>>61600705
Battery life.

>>61600705
>Why doesn't apple use amd cpu's?
Not sure if you've noticed but almost every machine in their product line is now using intel integrated graphics

>>61600705
Because intel only use 2-3 year old CPUs, and in that era, intel was still the best option.

>>61600705
No APUs yet. Can't use a dGPU on a laptop fulltime, your battery life will be shit. Once APUs are a thing, they'll use them. Ryzen already uses less power per clock than any Intel CPU, so they're very likely on the table.

>>61600902

How does that make sense? I thought Ryzen was actually shockingly efficient, power-wise.

They don't fall for memes.

They will is the APUs as soon as they are out. Like another anon said, they prefer integrated graphics.

>>61600726
>They need the best
So why doesn't apple use amd cpus?

>>61601118

Except the good ones.

>>61600705

I expect them to start with the Mac Mini refresh, paired with an embedded 300-tier card.

This will be the start of Intel's Special Rebate overclocking.

>>61600902
>Ryzen 1700 8c/16t: 65W TDP
>Intel i7 7820X 8c/16t: 140W
>“AYYMD IS BAD 4 BATTURY LIFE”
Shut up fuckin retard. It isn’t 2012 anymore. Mobile Ryzen will be amazingly power efficient

>>61601751
Cuz AMD is for poorfags.

Also by not using an AMD CPU, the little AMD hackintosh fuckers have to resort to hacks and headaches to run hackintoshes on AMD platforms.

>>61600705

1. Because they have a deal with Intel.

2. Because since core 2 Intel has been the de facto OEM and consumer choice..... because well, they were generations ahead of AMD in both power and efficiency.

3. Clearly no reason to change, that is, until now. AMD over the last 10 years has almost exclusively been used in lower end laptops/desktops. Apple sells a "premium" machine.

4. You could also ask why Apple doesn't use Nvidia. See point 1. They have an exclusive deal with AMD for graphics.

>>61600705
Apple is so locked into hardware that their OS would shit itself if it a different architecture.

>>61602398
They switched from powerPC to x86 without too much trouble. Switching between compatible systems wouldn't be too difficult, especially if there's a motivation to increase battery life.
Ryzen chips are like 40% more power efficient than intel chips, it's pretty silly.
They'd also be cheaper.

>>61602313
>hurr durr lets make huge market changing decisions just to annoy AMD hakintosh users

fuck off retard, your autism is showing.

>>61602423
Not happening senpai. Apple is using single digit TDP chips in some of its macbooks.

AMD is just now getting back into the desktop game, they're gonna need a few years to get a decent lineup like intels.

>>61600705
Probably because fucking Thunderbolt.

Apparently Intel made thundercuck open, so Ryzen 2 might come with this feature. I'm pretty sure they will use it soon.

> Raven Ridge Macbooks
> Threadripper Mac Pro's/iMac Pro's
> Ryzen iMacs/Mac Mini

>>61602439
Correction: Epyc Mac Pro's/iMac Pro's

>>61602436
>decent lineup like intels
That would be a downgrade.

>>61602534
Im talking super low TDP chips like in the 12 inch macbook, 15 watt tdp chips in the AIR, etc...

Right now AMD has none of that. At least , not of their new arch.

>>61602251
Except 7820X is like 10,000x more powerful CPU than ryzen shit, next time make a better comparison, maybe 7700k.

>>61602433
Jobs made huge market changing decisions based on the color of his macbook PCBs and how shit was arranged.

Cook took away headphone jack.

So yes, continue replying to my comments as I continue to annoy you too.

>>61602584
that's just straight bullshit, it's slightly worse at best. A fair trade-off for such a low TDP.

>>61602638
Cook is a faggot and nobody liked the decision to take away headphone jacks, but you have a point. Apple obviously couldn't give less of a fuck what they do with hardware anymore.

>>61602584
>tfw the 1800X is more powerful than the 7820X

>>61602584
1300X is more powerful than any intel jewpoo

>>61602666
stop lying

>>61602692
i don't see any evidence from you

>>61602692
Just check the benchmarks dude. The truth does not fear investigation.

>>61602696
>a $800 market leader cpu is worse than budget brand $400 cpu
i think you need to do the proving here

>>61602710
show me those benchmarks

File: 1497319262696.jpg (11KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 224x224px

>>61602584

>>61600705
They use mobile and ultra low power chips mostly. AMD can't compete yet at that area.

>>61602736
>makes bold claim about intel
>no evidence to back it up
>hurr durr price is higher it must be better
I'm not going to disprove your shitty argument if you can't even provide evidence for it yourself you fucking idiot.

>>61600902
>t. stuck in 2013
Get on with the times, Intel is the new shoah oven.

>>61602755
you said 1800x was more powerful than the 7820x, which is an even bolder claim

no wonder you can't back it up

>>61602736
>show me those benchmarks
If I provide them you'll claim that they're cherrypicked. You have to find them yourself.

>>61602766
that wasn't me, it was some other anon.
I said they're only slighty worse at best.

>>61602780
maybe you shouldn't have replied to that fucking thread then

your original comparison was equally retarded, you don't compare the power usage of a much more powerful and expensive top of the line cpu (face it, it is) to a mid range budget cpu and then gloat about it being more power efficient. no shit, it uses less power because it's not as powerful.

AMD doesn't make a Core M CPU comparable cpu.

There are fanless Macbooks running on Core M CPUs.

>>61602816
except that's not true, they're only slightly less powerful, as in a very small difference in processing power (assuming you actually use multithreading on ryzen)

>>61602816
I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about based on your complete lack of comprehension of a value proposition, your insistence that AMD is a budget brand despite AMD providing multiple superior products and technologies in the past, and your claim that Skylake-X uses more power not because it's less efficient (the truth) but because it's faster. The fact of the matter is that for any consumer looking for processors with more than four cores, Intel has nothing worth buying and this will be the case for quite some time.

>>61602766
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDl_ecj8TBw
literally the same shit but ryzen has a significant tdp advantage while offering 95% of its perfomance..

File: c9c.jpg (42KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x376px

>>61602917

>>61600705

Intel has a rebate program called MOAP/MCP where they give OEM's money for not using AMD CPU's

Dell got around 1 billion per quarter for not using AMD CPU in their computers and servers. When Dell finally made some AMD stuff (which were better than intel's offerings), Intel reduced the quarterly bribes to 200 million only.

I'm from jewish descent but I sincerely hope that Intel burns in hell for what they have done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

>>61600705
Soon in next year maybe, dunno how many years contracts Apple's and intel signed.

File: rypoo gaming.jpg (591KB, 1702x1349px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1702x1349px

>>61602687
Except it gets curbstomped by the 7350k

Keep living in fantasy world

>>61600705
Because of contract and rebates. Intel has a rebate program where they give millions of dollrs to companies that don't buy AMD CPUs.
Some companies, like HP, have been wholly dependent on that fucking rebate to keep in business.

>>61603023
>delidded
lol fail, ryzen wins once again

>>61603023
you post a pic that shows 2 out of 4 games being on ryzen fav and you say it curbstomped it?

i dont know so much shilling might have cause some eye damage

>>61603067
>2 out of 4 games in Ryzens favor
Are you blind? the 7350k is on top in every chart

Is this the kind of intelligence we can expect from AMD fanboys?

>>61603085
>OCing $180 chip to 5 nigguhurtz
?

>>61603097
>let's oc the Ryzen chips to the max but not the Intel chip! That would be fair!

>>61601118
top ones have radeons(firepro)

>>61603108
You do know you can OC anything Ryzen on box cooler paired with cheapo B350 mobo?
7350k turd offers no such thing.
It's always value first for poorfag shit.

>>61603085
7300 is the closest competitor of ryzen 3 at any given day
unless you want to justify a +50 bucks increase for a 10% perf increase

which given that you are shilling for intel it wont be suprised at all

>>61600705
Because like many other companies Intel has paid off not to use AMD, Apple is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

>>61603134
Even if you could only oc it to 4.6ghz on the stock cooler, the difference would still be massive

To deny this is to deny reality

>>61603146
Except you're wrong.

The 1300x is 130$
The 7350k has dropped to 150$

Factor in the cost of high speed ram which you are obligated to use in case of Ryzen and they are squarely in the same price bracket

>>61603162
>only oc it to 4.6ghz on the stock cooler,
Intel stock cooler is barely enough for stock clocks, Brian.

>>61603031
>Because of contract and rebates. Intel has a rebate program where they give millions of dollrs to companies that don't buy AMD CPUs.
Haven't they had to pay multiple billion dollar fines for precisely that program in the past? How are they still allowed to do it?

>>61603173
the msrp from intel is still on 168-179 unless you are suggesting that prices from stores somehow project the msrp that intel hasnt lowered at all
(the only line that has been lowered from intel is the pentium)

>>61603162
>Even if you could only oc it to 4.6ghz on the stock cooler, the difference would still be massive
It doesn't HAVE a stock cooler. None of the overclockable Intel CPUs do anymore.

>>61603182
Keep shifting the goalpost to make yourself feel better buddy, because decking out 10 bucks extra for a decent cooler for 30% extra performance is definately not worth it right?

Ryzen 3 gets handily curbstomped by the 7350k, by all means, get your R3 though, if you want to shoot yourself in the foot nobody is going to stop you!

>>61603197
Watch the video from 1:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGsbV2X749E&t=811s

Intel has dropped the price to 150

>>61603206
If you're willing to spend an extra $30(20 for the CPU, 10 for a cooler), you might as well get a R5 1400 instead, though.

>>61603192
>Haven't they had to pay multiple billion dollar fines for precisely that program in the past?
Yes.
>How are they still allowed to do it?
because they file appeals and motions to prolong everything. The last appeal was filed in 2009/2010 and it still hasn't reached court so Intel hasn't paid a fucking dime.

John Hennessey of Hennessey Performance uses the same tactic to keep customers from getting money back

>>61603224
Not according to these charts
>>61603023
Even the 1500x is below or on par in every chart

>>61603206
7350k is not in the same price bracket as the ryzen 3, its in the cheap r5 bracket
you also need an expensive motherboard to overclock it
you also need a non-stock cooler to overclock it

so tell me how outside of la-la land do you even begin to compare the 7350k to the ryzen 3 cpus

>>61603239
>you also need an expensive motherboard to overclock it
Wrong
>you also need a non-stock cooler to overclock it
True which is well worth it looking at the results

>>61603023

can you honestly tell me that if you see these results and you are looking for a cpu in your gaming pc, you wouldn't spend 30 bucks extra?

>>61603237
>Even the 1500x is below or on par in every chart
We must be looking at different charts, because I'm seeing only one where OC'd 1500x is below OC'd 7350k, and in that one it only loses in average while having the same minimum and higher 1% fps.

>>61600705
Team Blue is about 85% paid shills, the rest are just morons.
As for the 7350K faggotry, 1300x beats the 7350K in everything, literally everything but gaming FPS.
With the caveat that DX12/Vulkan games will perform better on a 1300x

>>61603224
Do you mean spending $20 to high end ram to make r3 suck less?

>>61603275
in 3 out of 4 of those benchmarks it's basically a tie while in one of them the 1500x gets stomped.

And what are we even talking about here, we are comparing the 1500x with a 7350k, two cpu's in a completely different price bracket but even there the 7350k is competitive.

>>61603280
stop comparing the 7350k to the 1300x, there are proper cheaper i3 cpus
>>61603250
it needs an z270 motherboard to overclock it you dumb shill sack of shit
fuck off and dont ever post on 4chan again you fucking garbage

>>61603280
So it beats it in everyhing except the one area that actualy matters for most people buying a cpu in that price bracket.

It also doesn't beat it in BF1 dx12 so you're full of shit

>>61603250
so i will get a h110m and i will be able to oc that monster of a cpu to 5.0 NIGGAHERTZ to beat a 4c ryzen by about 23%?

yeah only a intel shill will suggest such faggotry

File: 4e5.gif (11KB, 554x668px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 554x668px

because people who buy apple don't even know what a cpu is.

and this >>61600790

>>61603320
So here we are, AMD is back to being the budget brand with inferior performance but for less money.

While Intel is the premium product that offers premium performance for more money.

Nothing much has changed really.

I'm way more impressed with the r5 1600 and the r7 1700, the only two true champions of the Ryzen lineup.

The rest is still in the inferior but cheaper category compared to Intel

>>61603307
>in 3 out of 4 of those benchmarks it's basically a tie while in one of them the 1500x gets stomped.
>1.8 fps difference is "stomped"
Are... are you serious? Do you genuinely believe that charts starting at 140fps where one product gets 142 fps while competing product gets 144 fps are good representation of performance? Just what the fuck is going on here?

>>61603330
No, I would get a 20$ air cooler and oc it to 4.8 ghz while you are stuck at 3,9gz or 4.0ghz if you get a great sample

>>61603343
>While Intel is the premium product that offers premium performance for more money.
stfu idiot.. if that were true, they'd have NVidia gpus you stupid retard.

They obviously care to get cheapest components they can.

>>61603352
It gets beaten, by a cpu in a lower price bracket, that is enough.

Again, why are we even comparing two cpu's in two totaly different price brackets.

Do you really have to sink that low to make AMD look less bad?

File: power-oc-f.png (8KB, 575x177px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 575x177px

>>61603358
i guess the air you gonna use it will be premium intel certified air cause otherwise your shilling is trying to brake the laws of physics

>>61603364
I said performance

PERFORMANCE

can you read English you troglodyte?

Stop shifting the goalpost you extremely disingenuous fucking cunt

>>61603391
4.8 ghz isn't even on that chart.

And how is power consumption supposed to show anything about a succesful overclock you tech illiterate mong.

You should have shown temps and voltages

>>61603330
H110 doesn't support oc.
You need Z170 or Z270 for OC

>>61603384
>moving goalposts

>>61603393
You talk out of your ass. The true reason they dont use AMD is thunderbolt.. they dont give a single fuck about performance.

>>61603407
>look the 7350 is a bit more expensive but significantly better than the R3
>HURDURR BUT THE 1500x IS A FEW FPS BETTER

How do you people take yourself seriously

>>61603425
All assumptions, no evidence = horesehit

try again

>>61603427
reminder the MSRP of the 7350K is $180-190 and was only lowered recently because Intel knew it couldn't legitimately compete

>>61603427
By comparing ourselves to scum like you.

>>61603445
So what exactly is wrong here?

File: 1310429820535.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>61603447
When your opponent hits the bottom of the barrel, and has nothing left but namecalling.

That's when you know you've truly trumped someone

>>61603452
>a temporary price dro somehow makes it acceptable even though it's still massively overpriced

File: apple-tattoo-designs-21.jpg (76KB, 600x464px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x464px

>>61603439
the evidence is in apple store shelves. I seriously hope you have apple shares.

if you are a reality denying fanboy, gtfo out of my face

>>61603439
his assumption has merit.
Nothing you say does.

>>61603402
>he doesnt know how to extrapolate volts from wattage calls others tech illitarates...
tl dr moron its 1.42v

>>61603403
my point exactly

>>61603472
>Apple shares
Wow buddy, you're really going overboard here.

Can you stick to the topic at hand?

And no I don't have Apple shares, in fact I despise the company

>>61603474
>his assumptions have merit
Because you say so?

Wow I'm convinced, meanwhile actual benchmarks and facts are not convincing to you
>>61603023

The only logical conclusion is that you are a blind fanboy

>>61603427
YOU are the one who started shitposting about 1500x when the 1400 was brought up, retard. Stop moving goalposts and go fellate a shotgun.

>>61603487
>I don't have Apple shares
caring about a company so much, even though you dont get anything if they ridiculously increase their profit margins

lol, retard

>>61603503
Right and who dragged in the 1400?

You, you fucking idiot

>>61603505
I think you hit your head a bit to hard when you fell out of the tree buddy

This is a discussion about Intel vs AMD, go take your thunderbolt discussion somewhere else

>>61603527
That's because when you factor in the cooler and more expensive motherboard, the 1400 is cheaper than 7350k.

>>61603539
And still inferior, seeing how close the 1500x is, while having 2 more cores and 4 more threads

>>61603539
well helps that there isnt a way to run a cpu with a motherboard memory and a cooler you know

>>61602398
People run Mac OS in AMD processors since Athon to Ryzen.

>>61603599
But it wasn't official and even requires modified kernel

>>61600705
They are locked it they buy in advance. Intel don't make them put >Intel Inside< stickers on Apple computers because they are no pleb machines.

>>61603538
Apple's whole dongle ecosystem runs off of Thunderbolt of which Ryzen/Threadripper currently does not support natively.

>>61600705
Apple goes with whoever is willing to give them the best deals at the time just like consoles.

>>61601333
They put rx 460s in MacBook pro you low stock swine

>>61603023
>Comparing CPU gaming performance
>on notebook
>ever

File: 33.jpg (87KB, 780x550px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 780x550px

>>61600705
People who know what a CPU is do not use apple products.

they do as of 2017

>>61603023
>>61603085
>>61603206
>>61603250
>>61603322
>>61603343
>>61603384
>>61603393
>>61603427
>>61603555
Christ, Intel shills are embarrassingly stupid retards.

>>61603218
>Intel has dropped the price to 150
Can't find it online any cheaper than $160 and others have mentioned it requires a more expensive Z270 motherboard to OC it and doesn't come with a cooler. $20 less expensive still does not make this a good buy.

>>61604922
of course. if they don't shill as hard as they can, Intel won't pay them that sweet sweet cash from their "rebate" program.

>>61604922
just like amdpoojets

>>61605301
Kill yourself, dipshit. Nobody on AMD's side is defending "XTREME" dual cores with stupid price tags and locked-in overclocking on specific motherboards with no cooler included.

>>61602251
>will be
You Just Wait™

because Apple is for dumb tech users

Untested.

File: 87096.png (46KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 650x350px

>>61602584
>>61602692
>>61602736
>>61602766
>>61602816

Literally 50% more power consumption for this

Kill yourself

>>61600705
Ryzen hasn't been out long enough

>>61603023

Should beat or match a 7800X as well.

Ouch

They have a partnership I believe

>>61602584
BE GONE JUDEN

File: 1494588817105.jpg (113KB, 700x811px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 700x811px

>>61608366
>tfw you're a pro-competition lad