DDR on the Powermac in July: two possibilities
Pessimistic possibility:
Motorola can't handle getting the G4 bus up to DDR in the near future. In other words, the next Powermac will have the same 133 MHz FSB with 266 DDR RAM. Which, since your average desktop does much more proc<--->RAM work, will result in about a bupkus performance increase.
Problem:
As much as Motorola sucks, getting a DDR controller is not redesigning the flux capacitor. So, as much azs it pains me to say this, it seems a tad unlikely.
Optimistic possibility:
Apple, realizing that a server's greatest need is bandwidth thru to the I/O, decided to save design R&D and money by not including the DDR FSB in the server, waiting instead to hold it back for the desktop.
Problem:
Apple really likes to keep their motherboard production as similar as possible to each other, to reap cost savings. The idea of Apple designing a DDR-less and a DDR FSB motherboard seems far-fetched.
In other words, it seems that the prognosis for full-DDR Powermacs in July remains as cloudy as it's ever been.
Whaddya think?
TING5, Jet, SdA, SdC, whatever, whoever
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: There is no g5 ]</p>
Motorola can't handle getting the G4 bus up to DDR in the near future. In other words, the next Powermac will have the same 133 MHz FSB with 266 DDR RAM. Which, since your average desktop does much more proc<--->RAM work, will result in about a bupkus performance increase.
Problem:
As much as Motorola sucks, getting a DDR controller is not redesigning the flux capacitor. So, as much azs it pains me to say this, it seems a tad unlikely.
Optimistic possibility:
Apple, realizing that a server's greatest need is bandwidth thru to the I/O, decided to save design R&D and money by not including the DDR FSB in the server, waiting instead to hold it back for the desktop.
Problem:
Apple really likes to keep their motherboard production as similar as possible to each other, to reap cost savings. The idea of Apple designing a DDR-less and a DDR FSB motherboard seems far-fetched.
In other words, it seems that the prognosis for full-DDR Powermacs in July remains as cloudy as it's ever been.
Whaddya think?
TING5, Jet, SdA, SdC, whatever, whoever
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: There is no g5 ]</p>
Comments
BTW Xserve sounds like Apple had a "What's the stupidest name for this thing contest".
<strong>Problem:
Apple really likes to keep their motherboard production as similar as possible to each other, to reap cost savings. The idea of Apple designing a DDR-less and a DDR FSB motherboard seems far-fetched.
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: There is no g5 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think Apple will use a PCI/AGP riser card in the towers? Seems like some extra expense and installation hassle. If they don't the board will be somewhat different between the XServer and the PM line regardless. If they do, it seems like it would be easier for Apple to provide variants with different #s of PCI slots (hey if we're stuck at 1.2 Ghz with the halfway DDR solution maybe they could give the bottom 2 PMs the same number of slots as the server and give the top one 1 AGP and 6 PCI to make $3000 more palatable
The new chipset could easily support a DDR front side MPX bus, if such a beast exists, but have it not be used in the rackmount. This enhanced MPX bus is much less of a change than extended the G4's pipeline to 7 stages from 4, or moving to a new SOI process... so I don't find it unreasonable to speculate that such a thing could be delivered in the 6-7 month timeframe necessary for a MWNY introduction. If Moto is ramping up production to make enough of the new version for Apple's towers, Apple will be stock piling madly in order to have enough for introduction -- using the existing (and more common) 7455 in the rackmount makes a lot of sense, especially since these machines can leverage DDR without needing the new processor.
As usual there just isn't any real evidence either way -- its all a matter of whether you choose to be optimistic or pessimistic.
<strong>Would it be possible for Apple to incorporate two separate FSB for a dual GHz G4? It seems apparent that we can't get any faster than 133MHz with the current G4 setups, but what if they came out with a new PM that had independent 133MHz FSB's for each 1GHz G4 processor. That combined with DDR would be quick enough for a short term fix would it not? I don't know enough about mobo architecture to understand the limitations, but it seems that if Apple could produce something like this with the current setups and the new DDR introductions, the PM would at least be a little closer to a Pentium killer. Any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately that doesn't work -- the processors need to be able to monitor eachother's memory accesses to be sure that they don't step on eachother's toes. The G4 uses a scheme called MERSI that is based on having a shared bus. In theory it might be possible to have the memory controller do this work, but it would greatly complicate the memory controller. It would also only solve the dual processor situation.
Apple's testicles are in Motorola's vice, and ever since the clone wars Motorola has been winding it tighter and tighter and tighter...
Until Motorola offers Apple a G4 that can support a DDR front side bus, there is NOTHING that Apple can do other than divert attention from the guts of their hardware with bitchin' software and the almighty OS X. It is so tragic that Apple is leaps and bounds ahead of Wintels in every area under their control, yet just as Apple is poised to capture new market share, Motorola rips open Apple's scrotum and gives 'em a bucket to keep the blood off the floor.
The tragedy is that regardless of the inspiration, creativity, and all out brute effort of Apple employees, it all is rendered secondary by Motorola's lack of effort. And lack of effort it is; motorola simply refuses to commit the resources needed to develop a competitive PPC chip. Since Apple killed the clones, Motorola has been exacting vengeance by simple neglect. Desktop PPC development means nothing to Moto, their profits are elsewhere, but the killer part is that even if Apple's market share were nudged up to 8 or 10%, Moto's profits would be enormous! The problem is that Moto doesn't have any faith in Apple, hell Moto hasn't even used Macs since the clones were killed!
I can only imagine how pissed of Jobs must feel, bustin' his guts to make Apple a superior alternative to the Wintel juggernaut, only to have his dreams crushed by Motorola.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
<strong>I'll sum it up for everyone:
Apple's testicles are in Motorola's vice, and ever since the clone wars Motorola has been winding it tighter and tighter and tighter...
Until Motorola offers Apple a G4 that can support a DDR front side bus, there is NOTHING that Apple can do other than divert attention from the guts of their hardware with bitchin' software and the almighty OS X. It is so tragic that Apple is leaps and bounds ahead of Wintels in every area under their control, yet just as Apple is poised to capture new market share, Motorola rips open Apple's scrotum and gives 'em a bucket to keep the blood off the floor.
The tragedy is that regardless of the inspiration, creativity, and all out brute effort of Apple employees, it all is rendered secondary by Motorola's lack of effort. And lack of effort it is; motorola simply refuses to commit the resources needed to develop a competitive PPC chip. Since Apple killed the clones, Motorola has been exacting vengeance by simple neglect. Desktop PPC development means nothing to Moto, their profits are elsewhere, but the killer part is that even if Apple's market share were nudged up to 8 or 10%, Moto's profits would be enormous! The problem is that Moto doesn't have any faith in Apple, hell Moto hasn't even used Macs since the clones were killed!
I can only imagine how pissed of Jobs must feel, bustin' his guts to make Apple a superior alternative to the Wintel juggernaut, only to have his dreams crushed by Motorola.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey calm down JYD, we all want better mot chips. But here on AI we have to understand one thing : the Mac market is very small comparing to the PC market. The cost of developpement of a new chip is the same if you sell one of it or one hundred millions of it. If Apple was the only PPC customers of MOT, the PPC line will be even worse : we will stuck to the G3.
Mot see his own interest first : nothing to do with an revenge. In one hand they want to keep Apple as their customer, in other hand they cannot put the same amount the same amount of R&D than the others big companies : like AMD and Intel . Note that IBM do not do better for desktop processor : they do not want to invest too much money in a relatively small market.
In a resume : moto do his best with his possibilities in order to win money with their ppc chips, desktops chips included.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lemon Bon Bon
G5
If no G5 than we have the makeshift DDR on the PowerMac that we have today with the Xserve.
-blow us away (I mean really, not iMac 2 like blown away)
-blow my shoes
G-News
didn't that come out at MWSF?
didn't that come out at MWSF? "
Now, now. No need to be cynical and jaded.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Apple will be stock piling madly in order to have enough for introduction</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Please stop! You're killing me!
-Still Remaining CFPC
I'm just wondering if the Apple will win me back.
All I'm asking for is parity. I think that the G4-generation can hold it's own against the x86. But I DON'T believe the Powermac as a whole can run with similarly configured PC's. Again, parity. I'll pay the "Apple tax" as long as the box holds up.
It's good to see Apple handling their part of the DDR equation. I HOPE Motorola will handle their part.
Whatever. I've babbled on long enough.
In the end, is the Xserve a harbinger of better things to come in the near future (MacWord Expo), or the best we'll see from Apple (and Motorola) for some time (2003-ish)?
There is no Jet5
That's fair.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Pessimistic possibility:
Motorola can't handle getting the G4 bus up to DDR in the near future. In other words, the next Powermac will have the same 133 MHz FSB with 266 DDR RAM. Which, since your average desktop does much more proc<--->RAM work, will result in about a bupkus performance increase.
Problem:
As much as Motorola sucks, getting a DDR controller is not redesigning the flux capacitor. So, as much azs it pains me to say this, it seems a tad unlikely.
Optimistic possibility:
Apple, realizing that a server's greatest need is bandwidth thru to the I/O, decided to save design R&D and money by not including the DDR FSB in the server, waiting instead to hold it back for the desktop.
Problem:
Apple really likes to keep their motherboard production as similar as possible to each other, to reap cost savings. The idea of Apple designing a DDR-less and a DDR FSB motherboard seems far-fetched.
In other words, it seems that the prognosis for full-DDR Powermacs in July remains as cloudy as it's ever been.
Whaddya think?
TING5, Jet, SdA, SdC, whatever, whoever
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: There is no g5 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, a third possibility struck me last night. What many of us believe is the G5 will be introduced in fairly short order (and will feature DDR). Now then is it going to be worth Apple's and Motorola's while to make the G4 fully DDR compliant for iMacs, eMacs, and Servers? (only doubt I had about this was the Server) The current G4 is a proven part and is powerful enough in the near term for the Server. The G4 is soon to be the low end part. With this hacked solution to the G4 Apple can eventually go "DDR" across the whole line (though the G5 will be the only *full* DDR solution). Apple's whole desktop line is buzzword compliant and uses the same sticks of memory (depending what they do with the Oddball SO-DIMM slot on the iMac). Also if the G5 launches at a not terribly high clock and/or scales slowly it keeps the above advantages while also keeping an additional speed seperation between consumer and Pro(nee the Celron and PIII). The current performance proximity of the iMac and PowerMac is not by choice I'm sure)
If that is how it came down, I would expect G5s announced at MWNY (of course they are "shipping in 30 days", which means they'll ship in quantity early to mid September
The portables aren't involved in this but I'd guess them at MWSF at the most optimistic earliest.
<strong>
Unfortunately that doesn't work -- the processors need to be able to monitor eachother's memory accesses to be sure that they don't step on eachother's toes. The G4 uses a scheme called MERSI that is based on having a shared bus. In theory it might be possible to have the memory controller do this work, but it would greatly complicate the memory controller. It would also only solve the dual processor situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...still the system controller is a part that apple can build to it's own specs. If they could make one with a separate channel/bus for each proc, that somehows "relays" the relevant info between the procs, they could have quads without being limited by the bus speed. and it could work with any flavor of memory.
I guess the reason they haven't already done it, is 'cause it's simply next to impossible or something.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />