Waaant! Want want want! Xserve, AGP video card, custom rack, Cinema Display, Final Cut Pro. Waaant!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a question. Why would you pick...a rackmount instead of just a plain desktop (assuming you are doing this solo of course), is it just because of the DDR?
I have a question. Why would you pick...a rackmount instead of just a plain desktop (assuming you are doing this solo of course), is it just because of the DDR?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a musician, I have racks of equipment, and the computer would fit perfectly in.
Besides it sounds like a great thing to have 4 ATA-controllers and 4 internal HD's. plenty fast and enough storage for even the most demanding multi-track productions, I think
BUt it's going to be on a AGP riser? through a PCI slot? Is it going to offer the full AGP functionality of quartz extreme, or do we have yet another 'unsupported' product?
Nobody here for the moment is able to answer to this question : is the 7455 able to support DDR ram (and the data sheet from Motorola was missing this important point )or is this G4 an enhanced version of the 7455 with DDR memory controller.
<strong>Yeah, it's the good(!) old G4 with 133 Mhz bus. They might as well have stuck with SDRAM since DDR in this case won't mean anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, actually, I was already sort of expecting that when DDR was first mentioned there. As seen <a href="http://a1888.g.akamai.net/7/1888/51/eeb4f303a56921/www.apple.com/xserve/pdf/XserveTechOverview.pdf"; target="_blank">on page 25 of this Apple PDF</a>, we still have a "133MHz system bus supporting over 1GB/s data throughput". Slightly disappointing of course, but I guess we should keep in mind that, a) in real life scenarios, DDR is far from actually delivering twice the bandwidth, and b) the spare bandwidth might come in handy for all those bus master DMA engines in there (i.e. dual GBit ethernet, quad ATA100, whatever).
Still sounds a little like a marketing trick, though...
data throughput is 2.1GB for the memory bus. Even if the G4 can't use it, a dual config CAN take advantage because now each G4 can fully saturate it's own bus without choking off the data supply to the other G4. As I understand it, the G4's themselves would still have less than optimal bandwidth, but at least they won't be fighting each other for the memory bandwidth.
And I was sure that OSX supported 4+ GB of main memory. Does Apple have some sort of aversion to 1GB dimms?
<strong>Why is the bus speed listed as 133 if it is using DDR?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because there are two components that work together. There is the bus from the CPU to the memory controller, which can only run at a speed that the CPU supports. In the case of the current G4 this is limited to 133 Mhz.
Then there's the memory controller itself, and its connection to the memory banks. This new DDR memory controller supports double pumped transfers, so it's effectively 266 Mhz.
Of course, because the CPU bus is only 133 Mhz, the extra bandwidth of the memory will not be utilised, just as the case was with the DDR and Rambus chipsets that came out for the Pentium III. And just like the newer 333 Mhz DDR chipsets aren't improving the performance of the Athlon with 266 Mhz bus.
<strong>Why is the bus speed listed as 133 if it is using DDR?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only the data paths from the memory controller to the DRAM slots is double-clocked. The processor front-side bus still is the same od 133MHz bus that's already in the current towers.
<strong>Power Mac G4 Server no longer at Apple Store</strong><hr></blockquote>
Notice how the PowerMac G4s are down at the bottom of the store page with the XServe, and the G3 iMac is up at the top. It's like they're embarrassed about it.
Yeah, actually, I was already sort of expecting that when DDR was first mentioned there. As seen <a href="http://a1888.g.akamai.net/7/1888/51/eeb4f303a56921/www.apple.com/xserve/pdf/XserveTechOverview.pdf"; target="_blank">on page 25 of this Apple PDF</a>, we still have a "133MHz system bus supporting over 1GB/s data throughput". Slightly disappointing of course, but I guess we should keep in mind that, a) in real life scenarios, DDR is far from actually delivering twice the bandwidth, and b) the spare bandwidth might come in handy for all those bus master DMA engines in there (i.e. dual GBit ethernet, quad ATA100, whatever).
Still sounds a little like a marketing trick, though...
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it possible that one of the G4 access the memory while the cycle of memory is in the raising phase, while the other G4 access the memory on the other phase. It will make 133 mhz per processor but much better than 133 mhz divided by two.
<strong>data throughput is 2.1GB for the memory bus. Even if the G4 can't use it, a dual config CAN take advantage because now each G4 can fully saturate it's own bus without choking off the data supply to the other G4. As I understand it, the G4's themselves would still have less than optimal bandwidth, but at least they won't be fighting each other for the memory bandwidth.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, that's not true because both G4s share the same front side bus (like the P3, unlike the Athlon).
Because there are two components that work together. There is the bus from the CPU to the memory controller, which can only run at a speed that the CPU supports. In the case of the current G4 this is limited to 133 Mhz.
Then there's the memory controller itself, and its connection to the memory banks. This new DDR memory controller supports double pumped transfers, so it's effectively 266 Mhz.
Of course, because the CPU bus is only 133 Mhz, the extra bandwidth of the memory will not be utilised, just as the case was with the DDR and Rambus chipsets that came out for the Pentium III. And just like the newer 333 Mhz DDR chipsets aren't improving the performance of the Athlon with 266 Mhz bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So very typical of Apple isn't it? They can be so far ahead of the game in the industrial design and ease of use, and so far behind when it comes to the guts inside. It's like they just do not want to incorporate all kinds of new technologies at once, they want to drag them out over years. We have PC's pushing 500MHz bus speeds. We are in 2002 and we finally have DDR ram but the system bus is still a sick slow 133. With Apple it's always one step forward, two steps back.
Comments
<strong>
Waaant! Want want want! Xserve, AGP video card, custom rack, Cinema Display, Final Cut Pro. Waaant!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a question. Why would you pick...a rackmount instead of just a plain desktop (assuming you are doing this solo of course), is it just because of the DDR?
<strong>
I have a question. Why would you pick...a rackmount instead of just a plain desktop (assuming you are doing this solo of course), is it just because of the DDR?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a musician, I have racks of equipment, and the computer would fit perfectly in.
Besides it sounds like a great thing to have 4 ATA-controllers and 4 internal HD's. plenty fast and enough storage for even the most demanding multi-track productions, I think
gonna be a good summer, methinks. glad i waited on buying a new cpu (i always say that, though).
<strong>They're offering the Radeon 8500 as the BTO option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't the GeFo 4 Ti better anyways?
[quote] 133MHz system bus supporting over 1GB/s data throughput<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Isn't the GeFo 4 Ti better anyways?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the Radeon is better than the nVidias for video/MPEG-2 encoding and decoding.
<strong>Yeah, it's the good(!) old G4 with 133 Mhz bus. They might as well have stuck with SDRAM since DDR in this case won't mean anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, actually, I was already sort of expecting that when DDR was first mentioned there. As seen <a href="http://a1888.g.akamai.net/7/1888/51/eeb4f303a56921/www.apple.com/xserve/pdf/XserveTechOverview.pdf"; target="_blank">on page 25 of this Apple PDF</a>, we still have a "133MHz system bus supporting over 1GB/s data throughput". Slightly disappointing of course, but I guess we should keep in mind that, a) in real life scenarios, DDR is far from actually delivering twice the bandwidth, and b) the spare bandwidth might come in handy for all those bus master DMA engines in there (i.e. dual GBit ethernet, quad ATA100, whatever).
Still sounds a little like a marketing trick, though...
Bye,
RazzFazz
And I was sure that OSX supported 4+ GB of main memory. Does Apple have some sort of aversion to 1GB dimms?
<strong>Why is the bus speed listed as 133 if it is using DDR?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because there are two components that work together. There is the bus from the CPU to the memory controller, which can only run at a speed that the CPU supports. In the case of the current G4 this is limited to 133 Mhz.
Then there's the memory controller itself, and its connection to the memory banks. This new DDR memory controller supports double pumped transfers, so it's effectively 266 Mhz.
Of course, because the CPU bus is only 133 Mhz, the extra bandwidth of the memory will not be utilised, just as the case was with the DDR and Rambus chipsets that came out for the Pentium III. And just like the newer 333 Mhz DDR chipsets aren't improving the performance of the Athlon with 266 Mhz bus.
<strong>Why is the bus speed listed as 133 if it is using DDR?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only the data paths from the memory controller to the DRAM slots is double-clocked. The processor front-side bus still is the same od 133MHz bus that's already in the current towers.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Power Mac G4 Server no longer at Apple Store</strong><hr></blockquote>
Notice how the PowerMac G4s are down at the bottom of the store page with the XServe, and the G3 iMac is up at the top. It's like they're embarrassed about it.
<strong>
Yeah, actually, I was already sort of expecting that when DDR was first mentioned there. As seen <a href="http://a1888.g.akamai.net/7/1888/51/eeb4f303a56921/www.apple.com/xserve/pdf/XserveTechOverview.pdf"; target="_blank">on page 25 of this Apple PDF</a>, we still have a "133MHz system bus supporting over 1GB/s data throughput". Slightly disappointing of course, but I guess we should keep in mind that, a) in real life scenarios, DDR is far from actually delivering twice the bandwidth, and b) the spare bandwidth might come in handy for all those bus master DMA engines in there (i.e. dual GBit ethernet, quad ATA100, whatever).
Still sounds a little like a marketing trick, though...
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it possible that one of the G4 access the memory while the cycle of memory is in the raising phase, while the other G4 access the memory on the other phase. It will make 133 mhz per processor but much better than 133 mhz divided by two.
<strong>data throughput is 2.1GB for the memory bus. Even if the G4 can't use it, a dual config CAN take advantage because now each G4 can fully saturate it's own bus without choking off the data supply to the other G4. As I understand it, the G4's themselves would still have less than optimal bandwidth, but at least they won't be fighting each other for the memory bandwidth.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, that's not true because both G4s share the same front side bus (like the P3, unlike the Athlon).
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Because there are two components that work together. There is the bus from the CPU to the memory controller, which can only run at a speed that the CPU supports. In the case of the current G4 this is limited to 133 Mhz.
Then there's the memory controller itself, and its connection to the memory banks. This new DDR memory controller supports double pumped transfers, so it's effectively 266 Mhz.
Of course, because the CPU bus is only 133 Mhz, the extra bandwidth of the memory will not be utilised, just as the case was with the DDR and Rambus chipsets that came out for the Pentium III. And just like the newer 333 Mhz DDR chipsets aren't improving the performance of the Athlon with 266 Mhz bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So very typical of Apple isn't it? They can be so far ahead of the game in the industrial design and ease of use, and so far behind when it comes to the guts inside. It's like they just do not want to incorporate all kinds of new technologies at once, they want to drag them out over years. We have PC's pushing 500MHz bus speeds. We are in 2002 and we finally have DDR ram but the system bus is still a sick slow 133. With Apple it's always one step forward, two steps back.
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Bodhi ]</p>