Why Apple rejected AMD's Llano in the MacBook Air

Apple logoApple's MacBook Air may have come close to shipping with AMD's "Llano" integrated CPU and GPU processors this past summer. According to unnamed sources speaking to SemiAccurate, Apple had Llano-based MacBook Air prototypes "on the verge of production" but ultimately decided on Intel's ultra-low voltage Sandy Bridge processors instead. Assuming it's true that Apple was tinkering with Llano processors in its popular ultraportables—and we think it is—it's worth considering why the company ultimately sided with Intel over AMD.

First, it should be no surprise that Apple experiments with processors from other sources besides Intel. It just makes good engineering and business sense to consider and test alternatives. Apple even reportedly has MacBook Air prototypes with ARM-based processors somewhere inside its Cupertino headquarters, so the fact that an alternate x86 prototype exists is really no revelation.

What may be surprising is that a MacBook Air based on Llano was apparently Apple's "plan A," according to SemiAccurate's sources. However, that plan was allegedly scrapped sometime in the spring due to AMD's inability to ship processors in volume. "Binned lower voltage premium versions are probably... rare enough that Apple would probably have been severely constrained on supply," SemiAccurate wrote.

That's no doubt an important reason for Apple to take a pass on Llano, but it's certainly not the only reason. Early benchmarks revealed that Llano was a champ at keeping power use down—certainly a quality that Apple wanted for the Air. Llano also offers GPU performance that easily spanks Intel's integrated HD3000. But Llano's CPU performance doesn't compare to Sandy Bridge, and its GPU is hampered by a lack of direct access to high-speed RAM.

Assuming AMD could have delivered on the quantities that Apple expected, Apple would have been stuck with so-so CPU performance and decent GPU performance. That is, in fact, the same basic compromise Apple made for the 2010 MacBook Air, pairing older Core 2 Duo CPUs with NVIDIA's GeForce 320M controller with integrated GPU.

While that package, combined with a reasonably fast SSD, made for an overall useful machine, lackluster CPU performance was its top criticism. Sticking with AMD would have left Apple in the exact same position: great graphics, so-so overall performance. Gamers may have been happy, but then again, how many gamers are buying MacBook Airs?

Instead, Apple opted for Intel's Sandy Bridge processors. The integrated HD3000 GPU is no powerhouse—in gaming performance, in particular, it's actually not quite as good as the GPU in the NVIDIA 320M. But for the majority of tasks, graphics performance stayed steady while CPU performance crept up several notches. Essentially, the move made the MacBook Air a great machine for general use, decent for mobile media and content creation, and barely useable for high-end gaming.

Sticking with Intel also means Apple is ready to benefit from the chipmaker's next-generation Ivy Bridge processors slated for next year. Ivy Bridge will combine several GPU improvements, including OpenCL compatibility and updated OpenGL support, with Intel's highly efficient 22nm tri-gate transistor design. This will allow Apple to both improve performance while cutting power drain and likely increasing the MacBook Air's already impressive battery life.

In the end, the choice Apple made looks like the right one. The MacBook Air now accounts for nearly one-third of Apple's notebook sales, and Intel has spurred Windows PC vendors to create their own MacBook Air clones (with limited success, so far). AMD may be able to improve on Llano's performance with some design tweaks, and its GPU performance will handily beat Intel's, but for the time being it will remain a step or two behind Intel in terms of CPU performance. Having moved forward in that regard with Sandy Bridge, we don't expect Apple to go back anytime soon.

Source: Ars Technica

Tags: AMD, Apple, CPUs, notebooks

Comments
Add comment

Your name:
Sign in with:
or
Your comment:


Enter code:

E-mail (not required)
E-mail will not be disclosed to the third party


Last news

 
 
Highlights of the new feature update include a tweaked interface with Fluent Design elements
 
It’s now open to third-party developers and designed for smart home devices
 
Prices start at $1499 for the 13.5-inch model and $2499 for the 15-inch model
 
Users claim the Start menu isn’t working after the upgrade
 
It will release its first all-purpose AI chips by the end of 2017
 
Android 8.1 Oreo arriving on Pixel phones "in the coming weeks"
 
The Snapdragon 636 also comes with support for modern ultra-wide FHD+ displays
The Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) Review
The evolution of the successful smartphone, now with a waterproof body and USB Type-C
February 7, 2017 /
Samsung Galaxy TabPro S - a tablet with the Windows-keyboard
The first Windows-tablet with the 12-inch display Super AMOLED
June 7, 2016 /
Keyboards for iOS
Ten iOS keyboards review
July 18, 2015 /
Samsung E1200 Mobile Phone Review
A cheap phone with a good screen
March 8, 2015 / 4
Creative Sound Blaster Z sound card review
Good sound for those who are not satisfied with the onboard solution
September 25, 2014 / 2
Samsung Galaxy Gear: Smartwatch at High Price
The first smartwatch from Samsung - almost a smartphone with a small body
December 19, 2013 /
 
 

News Archive

 
 
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    




Poll

Do you use microSD card with your phone?
or leave your own version in comments (4)