<strong>Jaddie: It was tech demoed in september, it was finalized early 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>Dear Barto & Friends
The original G4 was introduced at Seybold in September of 1999. The first units shipped in October. I ordered several 500MHz G4s for clients. Some of the orders were cancelled and some of the orders were replaced by orders for 450MHz machines. Some of my clients received their machines in October of 1999.
<strong>JYD> I desperately hope that Apple doesn't use the XServe DDR solution in the next powermacs, it would be a total PR disaster if Apple introduced DDR but kept the same damn frontside bus bottleneck
So if apple does that, they're screwed, but athlon, p4 mobos pulling exactly the same stunt, you don't complain about that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the thing is, they don't pull that stunt.
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.
FWIW, I have been told that the G5 exists, but it will called something entirely different. this could be why we have all this conflicting info. Who knows.
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact, whether intended or not, he was partially right.
The DDR333 Athlon offerings that seem to be so popular right now are in a similar situation as the XServe, since their memory bus at 2x166MHz is faster than their front side bus at 2x133MHz.
In the case of a P4 / i845 combination, as you already mentioned, it's the other way around - the FSB is much faster than the memory bus. The effect is basically the same.
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
quite clearly states that the XP supports a "Front Side Bus" (their caps) of "133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR". Scrolling down reveals that it supports "Memory Clock" speeds of "100/133/200/266 MHz".
Precisely how does that differ from Apple's xserve?
So if Apple offered a 1.5 GHz G4 with a double pumped frontside bus at 166 MHz, with 333 MHz DDR RAM, then they would actually have something competitive on their hands.
Hopefully this is the truth, but I'm not very optimistic.
In fact, whether intended or not, he was partially right.
The DDR333 Athlon offerings that seem to be so popular right now are in a similar situation as the XServe, since their memory bus at 2x166MHz is faster than their front side bus at 2x133MHz.
In the case of a P4 / i845 combination, as you already mentioned, it's the other way around - the FSB is much faster than the memory bus. The effect is basically the same.
You're right. But the 333 Mhz DDR chipset is just another marketing gimmick from VIA, which is far from a reliable company anyway. At least the Athlons have proper DDR 266 support.
As for the Pentium 4 motherboards with PC 133 RAM, they're strictly budget solutions and marketed as such. I wouldn't criticise them the same way I wouldn't criticise Apple for not using DDR in the new PPC 750fx iBook even though the new processor supports 200 Mhz DDR.
Apparently AMD will increase the FSB frequencies of Athlon MPs by late June/July, which will give them proper support for DDR 333 and possibly 400.
You're right. But the 333 Mhz DDR chipset is just another marketing gimmick from VIA, which is far from a reliable company anyway. At least the Athlons have proper DDR 266 support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, something similar used to be true for Intel too (i820 boards with RDRAM on a P3), and I'd imagine most Duron (100MHz DDR FSB) systems also have 133MHz DDR memory (quite simply because PC1600 memory is hard to come by these days).
[quote]<strong>
As for the Pentium 4 motherboards with PC 133 RAM, they're strictly budget solutions and marketed as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even with PC2100 DDR SDRAM (i845D), the P4's FSB is still considerably faster.
[quote]<strong>I wouldn't criticise them the same way I wouldn't criticise Apple for not using DDR in the new PPC 750fx iBook even though the new processor supports 200 Mhz DDR.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I believe the rumours said the 750fx FSB was in fact clocked at real 200MHz (i.e. no DDR).
Athlons use 64bit (8byte) DDR-266MHz FSBs. (2133MB/s bandwidth)
Pentium 3s and G4s use 64bit (8byte) 133MHz FSBs. (1066MB/s bandwidth)
Pentium 4s use 64bit (8byte) QDR-400MHz and QDR-533MHz FSBs. (3200 and 4266MB/s bandwidth)
750FX G3s use 64bit (8byte) 200MHz FSBs. (1600MB/s bandwidth)
Memory:
DDR-200 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-200MHz. (1600MB/s)
Dual Channel (nVidia calls it 128bit DDR) DDR-200 is 3200MB/s
DDR-266 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-266MHz (2133MB/s)
Dual Channel DDR-266 is 4266MB/s
DDR-333 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-333MHz (2666MB/s)
Dual Channel DDR-333 is 5333MB/s
PC600 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-600MHz Dual Channel (2400MB/s)
PC800 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-800MHz Dual Channel (3200MB/s)
PC1066 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-1066MHz Dual Channel (4266MB/s)
Pairing memory with slower CPU system buses results in memory bandwidth not being used (some exeptions, for instance the Xserve where the PCI cards can access the memory directly, so PCI gets to play with bandwidth not used by the CPU).
There is NO SUCH THING native memory type on desktop CPUs currently. The northbridge (or IC or IGP) translates the memory to the system bus. The system bus and memory can be any type as long as the northbridge can handle it.
It just makes little sense in desktop or portable computers to pair fast memory with slow system buses.
<strong>PC600 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-600MHz Dual Channel (2400MB/s)
PC800 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-800MHz Dual Channel (3200MB/s)
PC1066 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-1066MHz Dual Channel (4266MB/s)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to clarify, PC600, PC800 and PC1066 RD-RAM runs at 300, 400 and 533MHz double-pumped, respectively, for effective data rates of 600, 800 and 1066 Megabits/s per pin. One RD-RAM channel is 16 bit wide, allowing for 1200MB/s, 1600MB/s and 2133MB/s. Modern motherboards usually use two such channels at once, doubling the throughput to the numbers you stated.
Also note that all of the numbers listed above are purely theoretical and aren't actually acheived in practice. The actual bus protocol, chipset implementation, and access pattern determine what %age of the maximum theoretical throughput is achieved. On this score, at least, the latest PowerMac G4's (MPX bus) do quite well -- better than any of the others that I'm aware of, including the 750fx.
That's my point. The 266 mhz thoroughput is only between CPU and memory. Everything else on the FSB (admittedly, not much) runs at 133 mhz. So again, what is it that Apple is doing that JYD's whingeing about? Apple's 266 mhz ddr with a 133 fsb is THE SAME DEAL as what the x86 world is doing.
The "266 mhz FSB" is a scam, it only means that the memory can transfer as much as if it were a SDR 266 bus (because it's a DDR 133 bus... data is sent on the rising and falling edges of the clock cycle... there's still only ~133 million clock cycles per second... 2x133 = 266) so they call it a "266" or "DDR 266" bus.
So what is it that Apple's doing different to the PC world?
If "Glove" kicks in, how long will it take M$ to leverage MacOffice?
That's right. I'm suprised no one has said it. I honestly don't believe M$ will take it lying down. "Oh, it's ok, we sell Mac Office so we still make money" Yeah right. When & if Apple reaches 10%, M$ is going to start snooping around. If they hit it too soon, someone's gonna pull a rug out and either raise prices or cripple functionality. They've done it time and time again.....
"I was able to get the board running at 133Mhz FSB easily, which increases the DDR throughput to 2.7GB/s"
2.7 GB/s is the bandwidth usually cited for what is usually called "DDR 266" mobos. See that, PC2700 memory... and then look at the quote, "running at 133 MHz."
Anyway, the point of my rant is to figure out what JYD is constantly whining and carrying on about when he whinges about apple not implementing a "true DDR frontside bus" or whatever he was *****ing about. Apple is doing the exact same thing as x86 mobo manufacturers.
RazzFazz>I'd imagine most Duron (100MHz DDR FSB)
At least someone knows what the hell they're talking about. Thanks Razz.
Enough (for now, anyway) of that rant.
Mack Damon>That's right. I'm suprised no one has said it. I honestly don't believe M$ will take it lying down. "Oh, it's ok, we sell Mac Office so we still make money" Yeah right. When & if Apple reaches 10%, M$ is going to start snooping around.
I'm guessing that MS would sell more copies of Mac Office.
That said, MS is pushing toward .NET, and a .net runtime for Mac OS would bring all .net software to the mac, a la java (but more flexible, apparently, given that .net development can be in more languages than C#). So this would indicate that MS could roll their Mac Business Unit (i think that's the name) back into the fold, develop one version of office, "for .net", and just ship that, and it would run on any platform with the .net runtime. Sounds good. Until you compare mac office, which is pretty good IMHO, with windows office, which sucks donkey dong. I'd believe that there are people out there who buy macs for Mac office, particularly given the warm reception given to Office X.
So personally I believe that something like a .net office would be a danger in disguise.
Maybe MS wouldn't care as much as we think. MS is essentially a software company. If they can bring out software the dominates both platforms, they might not mind Apple getting 10% or more. It may also help MS from anti-trust actions as we have seen recently.
i would not be surprised to see MS increase the number of it products ported to the OS X. Macs suffer from a great shortage of lost cost applications and I can see that Front page would be in demand from the consumers and schools. The same is true of Publisher.
Comments
<strong>Jaddie: It was tech demoed in september, it was finalized early 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>Dear Barto & Friends
The original G4 was introduced at Seybold in September of 1999. The first units shipped in October. I ordered several 500MHz G4s for clients. Some of the orders were cancelled and some of the orders were replaced by orders for 450MHz machines. Some of my clients received their machines in October of 1999.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
<a href="http://www.macjournals.com"; target="_blank">MDJ</a> Reader
<strong>JYD> I desperately hope that Apple doesn't use the XServe DDR solution in the next powermacs, it would be a total PR disaster if Apple introduced DDR but kept the same damn frontside bus bottleneck
So if apple does that, they're screwed, but athlon, p4 mobos pulling exactly the same stunt, you don't complain about that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the thing is, they don't pull that stunt.
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.
stuff the pc - i want a g4 w/ ddr ram and 4mb l3 cache - NICE !
Pentium 4s are quad pumped FSB 100x400=400
and now quad pumped FSB 133x4=533
FWIW, I have been told that the G5 exists, but it will called something entirely different. this could be why we have all this conflicting info. Who knows.
<strong>
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact, whether intended or not, he was partially right.
The DDR333 Athlon offerings that seem to be so popular right now are in a similar situation as the XServe, since their memory bus at 2x166MHz is faster than their front side bus at 2x133MHz.
In the case of a P4 / i845 combination, as you already mentioned, it's the other way around - the FSB is much faster than the memory bus. The effect is basically the same.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>
Well, the thing is, they don't pull that stunt.
Athlon processors support a DDR PROCESSOR BUS , Pentium 4 processors support a QDR PROCESSOR BUS . As such, all current motherboards that ship with DDR RAM for the P4 and Athlon, naturally support their bus protocol. In the case of Athlon, this front side bus bandwidth exactly equals DDR 266 bandwidth. In the case of the P4, since it's quad-pumped, the front side bus bandwidth is actually double of what DDR 266 can provide. So, nobody is pulling a stunt. It's just that some people are too thick-headed to understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This link:
<a href="http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-03.html"; target="_blank">http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-03.html</a>;
quite clearly states that the XP supports a "Front Side Bus" (their caps) of "133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR". Scrolling down reveals that it supports "Memory Clock" speeds of "100/133/200/266 MHz".
Precisely how does that differ from Apple's xserve?
Hopefully this is the truth, but I'm not very optimistic.
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
<strong>
quite clearly states that the XP supports a "Front Side Bus" (their caps) of "133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR"
Precisely how does that differ from Apple's xserve?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You just answered your own question... :
[quote]XP supports a "Front Side Bus" (their caps) of "133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR"
<hr></blockquote>
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>
<strong>
In fact, whether intended or not, he was partially right.
The DDR333 Athlon offerings that seem to be so popular right now are in a similar situation as the XServe, since their memory bus at 2x166MHz is faster than their front side bus at 2x133MHz.
In the case of a P4 / i845 combination, as you already mentioned, it's the other way around - the FSB is much faster than the memory bus. The effect is basically the same.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. But the 333 Mhz DDR chipset is just another marketing gimmick from VIA, which is far from a reliable company anyway. At least the Athlons have proper DDR 266 support.
As for the Pentium 4 motherboards with PC 133 RAM, they're strictly budget solutions and marketed as such. I wouldn't criticise them the same way I wouldn't criticise Apple for not using DDR in the new PPC 750fx iBook even though the new processor supports 200 Mhz DDR.
Apparently AMD will increase the FSB frequencies of Athlon MPs by late June/July, which will give them proper support for DDR 333 and possibly 400.
<strong>
You're right. But the 333 Mhz DDR chipset is just another marketing gimmick from VIA, which is far from a reliable company anyway. At least the Athlons have proper DDR 266 support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, something similar used to be true for Intel too (i820 boards with RDRAM on a P3), and I'd imagine most Duron (100MHz DDR FSB) systems also have 133MHz DDR memory (quite simply because PC1600 memory is hard to come by these days).
[quote]<strong>
As for the Pentium 4 motherboards with PC 133 RAM, they're strictly budget solutions and marketed as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even with PC2100 DDR SDRAM (i845D), the P4's FSB is still considerably faster.
[quote]<strong>I wouldn't criticise them the same way I wouldn't criticise Apple for not using DDR in the new PPC 750fx iBook even though the new processor supports 200 Mhz DDR.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I believe the rumours said the 750fx FSB was in fact clocked at real 200MHz (i.e. no DDR).
Bye,
RazzFazz
Athlons use 64bit (8byte) DDR-266MHz FSBs. (2133MB/s bandwidth)
Pentium 3s and G4s use 64bit (8byte) 133MHz FSBs. (1066MB/s bandwidth)
Pentium 4s use 64bit (8byte) QDR-400MHz and QDR-533MHz FSBs. (3200 and 4266MB/s bandwidth)
750FX G3s use 64bit (8byte) 200MHz FSBs. (1600MB/s bandwidth)
Memory:
DDR-200 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-200MHz. (1600MB/s)
Dual Channel (nVidia calls it 128bit DDR) DDR-200 is 3200MB/s
DDR-266 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-266MHz (2133MB/s)
Dual Channel DDR-266 is 4266MB/s
DDR-333 is 64bit (8byte) DDR-333MHz (2666MB/s)
Dual Channel DDR-333 is 5333MB/s
PC600 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-600MHz Dual Channel (2400MB/s)
PC800 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-800MHz Dual Channel (3200MB/s)
PC1066 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-1066MHz Dual Channel (4266MB/s)
Pairing memory with slower CPU system buses results in memory bandwidth not being used (some exeptions, for instance the Xserve where the PCI cards can access the memory directly, so PCI gets to play with bandwidth not used by the CPU).
There is NO SUCH THING native memory type on desktop CPUs currently. The northbridge (or IC or IGP) translates the memory to the system bus. The system bus and memory can be any type as long as the northbridge can handle it.
It just makes little sense in desktop or portable computers to pair fast memory with slow system buses.
Barto
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>PC600 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-600MHz Dual Channel (2400MB/s)
PC800 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-800MHz Dual Channel (3200MB/s)
PC1066 RAMBUS is 16bit (2byte) QDR-1066MHz Dual Channel (4266MB/s)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to clarify, PC600, PC800 and PC1066 RD-RAM runs at 300, 400 and 533MHz double-pumped, respectively, for effective data rates of 600, 800 and 1066 Megabits/s per pin. One RD-RAM channel is 16 bit wide, allowing for 1200MB/s, 1600MB/s and 2133MB/s. Modern motherboards usually use two such channels at once, doubling the throughput to the numbers you stated.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Modern motherboards usually use two such channels at once, doubling the throughput to the numbers you stated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said, Dual Channel.
I thought that RAMBUS was quad pumped, thanks for correcting me.
But my bandwidth figures and points are still correct.
Barto
Barto
<strong>
You just answered your own question... :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XP supports a "Front Side Bus" (their caps) of "133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR"
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's my point. The 266 mhz thoroughput is only between CPU and memory. Everything else on the FSB (admittedly, not much) runs at 133 mhz. So again, what is it that Apple is doing that JYD's whingeing about? Apple's 266 mhz ddr with a 133 fsb is THE SAME DEAL as what the x86 world is doing.
The "266 mhz FSB" is a scam, it only means that the memory can transfer as much as if it were a SDR 266 bus (because it's a DDR 133 bus... data is sent on the rising and falling edges of the clock cycle... there's still only ~133 million clock cycles per second... 2x133 = 266) so they call it a "266" or "DDR 266" bus.
So what is it that Apple's doing different to the PC world?
That's right. I'm suprised no one has said it. I honestly don't believe M$ will take it lying down. "Oh, it's ok, we sell Mac Office so we still make money" Yeah right. When & if Apple reaches 10%, M$ is going to start snooping around. If they hit it too soon, someone's gonna pull a rug out and either raise prices or cripple functionality. They've done it time and time again.....
Mack Damon :eek:
GAH. They don't use 266 Mhz FSBs. THEY DON'T EXIST. Understand? THEY DON'T EXIST.
Or take this, from: <a href="http://accelenation.com/?doc=109&page=1"; target="_blank">http://accelenation.com/?doc=109&page=1</a>;
"I was able to get the board running at 133Mhz FSB easily, which increases the DDR throughput to 2.7GB/s"
2.7 GB/s is the bandwidth usually cited for what is usually called "DDR 266" mobos. See that, PC2700 memory... and then look at the quote, "running at 133 MHz."
Anyway, the point of my rant is to figure out what JYD is constantly whining and carrying on about when he whinges about apple not implementing a "true DDR frontside bus" or whatever he was *****ing about. Apple is doing the exact same thing as x86 mobo manufacturers.
RazzFazz>I'd imagine most Duron (100MHz DDR FSB)
At least someone knows what the hell they're talking about. Thanks Razz.
Enough (for now, anyway) of that rant.
Mack Damon>That's right. I'm suprised no one has said it. I honestly don't believe M$ will take it lying down. "Oh, it's ok, we sell Mac Office so we still make money" Yeah right. When & if Apple reaches 10%, M$ is going to start snooping around.
I'm guessing that MS would sell more copies of Mac Office.
That said, MS is pushing toward .NET, and a .net runtime for Mac OS would bring all .net software to the mac, a la java (but more flexible, apparently, given that .net development can be in more languages than C#). So this would indicate that MS could roll their Mac Business Unit (i think that's the name) back into the fold, develop one version of office, "for .net", and just ship that, and it would run on any platform with the .net runtime. Sounds good. Until you compare mac office, which is pretty good IMHO, with windows office, which sucks donkey dong. I'd believe that there are people out there who buy macs for Mac office, particularly given the warm reception given to Office X.
So personally I believe that something like a .net office would be a danger in disguise.
i would not be surprised to see MS increase the number of it products ported to the OS X. Macs suffer from a great shortage of lost cost applications and I can see that Front page would be in demand from the consumers and schools. The same is true of Publisher.