Is Apple preping DDR II?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Samsung announced DDR II:



<a href="http://www.samsungelectronics.com/semiconductors/DRAM/product_news/semiadmin_1022560678375_101.html"; target="_blank">http://www.samsungelectronics.com/semiconductors/DRAM/product_news/semiadmin_1022560678375_101.html</a>;



"Successful System Level Evaluation Achieved Through Joint Collaboration With IBM

* New JEDEC-compliant 512Mb DDR-II SDRAM achieves 533Mbps data transfer rates

* System-level evaluation jointly completed with IBM on early 128Mb DDR-II device prototypes"





Could Apple use this in the next PM update? Would this be probable or do you think the Xserve is more of what we'll see?



[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: JasonPP ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I would be amazed if Apple - or anyone - rolled out a DDR II implementation before January.
  • Reply 2 of 25
    C'mon Amorph, you know you want to say <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001723;p=6#0002 25" target="_blank">late summer</a>
  • Reply 2 of 25
    jasonppjasonpp Posts: 308member
    I would have agreed, but the release says that the 128MB DDR-II component was successfully tested with IBM in March 2001... Over a year.. How long has Apple been working on the new PM's?



    Agreed that January is MUCH more likely with the G5( or whatever is coming next)
  • Reply 4 of 25
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    The problem with an early adoption of DDR2 for Apple would be component cost, and I doubt that they would move to it for that reason.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    [quote]Originally posted by JasonPP:



    Could Apple use this in the next PM update?



    <hr></blockquote>



    Impossible: Samsung says volume production will start Q3 2003... But it's a logical path for Apple to follow - in the distant future...



    BTW: my first post here - hi everybody!



    ZoSo
  • Reply 6 of 25
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by JCG:

    <strong>The problem with an early adoption of DDR2 for Apple would be component cost, and I doubt that they would move to it for that reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, I don't know. It didn't stop them from using Superdrives, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire or SCSI drives in older PowerMac revisions.. and as opposed to other technology DDR-II might be worth the extra money to many people wanting a POWERmac. They could claim "a first", some "excellent performance" and even a bit of "industry innovations" in their marketing papers. And even be a bit of future-proof with it :cool:
  • Reply 7 of 25
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by ZoSo:

    <strong>



    Impossible: Samsung says volume production will start Q3 2003... But it's a logical path for Apple to follow - in the distant future...



    BTW: my first post here - hi everybody!



    ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ZoSo,



    What kind of first post was that?!?! It was polite and on topic... Tisk tisk tisk what is AI turning into...



    P.S. Welcome aboard!



    Dave
  • Reply 8 of 25
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    533Mbps per pin or what?

    Coz 533Mbps ain't a hell lot, in fact it's really dog slow if that's the whole chip performance.



    G-News
  • Reply 9 of 25
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>533Mbps per pin or what?

    Coz 533Mbps ain't a hell lot, in fact it's really dog slow if that's the whole chip performance.



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Edit... I removed the comment since my first read I could have sworn it said Mhz not Mbs and and yes it should have read Mhz since Mbs would be slow indeed.



    Dave



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 25
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>533Mbps per pin or what?

    Coz 533Mbps ain't a hell lot, in fact it's really dog slow if that's the whole chip performance.



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was thinking the exact same thing, given that the current SDRAM implementation gets what, like 1 GB/s.
  • Reply 11 of 25
    It's obviously a mistake; they meant 533MHz.
  • Reply 12 of 25
    I also missunderstood, seeing MHz where there were none, and thought DaveGee was actually making an astute observation about DDR that I was just not getting, (like that DDR is more error or errata prone or sumthin) and I tried to make a joke of it... But, now that is gone so I'm revising history as well.



    Oh well - my bad



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 25
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by JasonPP:

    <strong>Samsung announced DDR II:

    "Successful System Level Evaluation Achieved Through Joint Collaboration With IBM

    * New JEDEC-compliant 512Mb DDR-II SDRAM achieves 533Mbps data transfer rates

    * System-level evaluation jointly completed with IBM on early 128Mb DDR-II device prototypes"

    Could Apple use this in the next PM update? Would this be probable or do you think the Xserve is more of what we'll see?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You do realize the article is about a prototype device (i.e. chip), not module?

    I kinda doubt Apple would want to solder those things onto their mobos...



    EDIT: Oops, they mention prototype DIMMs too in there. Sorry, my bad.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 25
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Analogue bubblebath:

    <strong>It's obviously a mistake; they meant 533MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    533 megabit per second per pin do make sense. In fact, stating anything else for an individual chip (rather than a module) would be pretty pointless, since you don't know how many such chips (thus how many data lines) will be on the final modules.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 15 of 25
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by pey/coy-ote:

    <strong>Ok Mr. DaveGee please explain to us poor ignorant dogs...[/b] Is it your opinion that DDR is just over-hyped?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No... it is a FACT that DDR using todays G4 processor is WAY over-hyped in these forums. First thing is the current G4 will not take correct/full advantage of DDR (see the Xserve for more details). Second since NOBODY has ever seen a G4 with DDR it's pretty hard to tell exactly what benefit we'd get... but most agree that the DDR as used in the Xserve isn't really 'true use' of DDR since the CPU can't take real advantage of it.



    People keep screaming for Apple to do it anyway... All DDR on todays G4 will give us is some faster network IO and for 99.99% of those who post here network IO isn't an issue and for the other .01% they are gonna buy the Xserver.



    [quote]Originally posted by pey/coy-ote:

    <strong>Or do you think it's real performance is not what people think? Is there something not widely understood about DDR that we should be aware of ???</strong><hr></blockquote>



    See above...



    [quote]Originally posted by pey/coy-ote:

    <strong>Or are we all just such ignorant son's of b***'s that it doesn't matter that this DDR stuff causes cancer and all our children will look like SJR. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    See above... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    You want DDR then it isn't really Apple you have issues with. Apple can only do what the CPU will let it do. You want Apple to kill MOT and move on to someone else? Well okay you can rant about that all you like but that isn't the same as ranting about DDR...



    Heck if you wanna rant about lack of DDR support in the CPU you might as well rant that it doesn't support native x86 instructions either.



    Dave



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 25
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Actually, Dave, I think there is more merit in the Xserve style architecture than you give credit for. The reason is called Quartz Extreme. The graphics engine all by itself can use up the "excess" bandwidth DDR266 provides, and it won't get in the way of the CPU while its doing it. I fully agree that a DDR savvy CPU would be better, but the Xserve design has some merit and doesn't deserved to be slagged like that. Apple is doing the best it can with the processor it has available.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    lowb-inglowb-ing Posts: 98member
    Dave.



    I dont think anyone in this thread was refering to the CURRENT G4. The original poster seems to assume the "next" G4 update will be the 7470, the specs of which are still clouded in mystery. As far as the others go, they don't seem to expect this tech till next year. By that time even the G5 is a possibility.



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: LowB-ing ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 25
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>Actually, Dave, I think there is more merit in the Xserve style architecture than you give credit for. The reason is called Quartz Extreme. The graphics engine all by itself can use up the "excess" bandwidth DDR266 provides, and it won't get in the way of the CPU while its doing it. I fully agree that a DDR savvy CPU would be better, but the Xserve design has some merit and doesn't deserved to be slagged like that. Apple is doing the best it can with the processor it has available.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Point well taken Programmer...



    But you have to understand (err I'm sure you do) people moaning about DDR has been getting so outta hand. Heck I don't mind people talking about 'what-ifs' and 'what-might-be' etc etc etc that's fine (but a fantasy) and then some nuts start moaning over and over again that Apple should of had DDR 12 months ago etc etc etc...



    Fact is Apple COULDN'T have given us DDR 12 months ago and infact Apple STILL can't give is 'true DDR' today (as per the Xserve) - Oh and I agree Apple has done very well (with what MOT has given them to work with) in giving DDR a fighting chance but as you said QE is going to have to be available to make use of it.



    Dave
  • Reply 19 of 25
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    DDR II ???? <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]" />



    Apple hasn't even touched DDR ONE!



    The xServe is not a true DDR system.
  • Reply 20 of 25
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:

    <strong>DDR II ???? <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]" />



    Apple hasn't even touched DDR ONE!



    The xServe is not a true DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    From the memory controller's point of view, it absolutely is. Just because the CPU can't saturate it alone doesn't make the memory subsystem any less DDR.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
Sign In or Register to comment.