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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lemme get this straight....
For most, DDR has been ask for by people in this form for close to a year because they believe it will allow the CPU to perform better than it is now (when I say CPU I really mean the over-all experience while sitting in front of the screen doing 'stuff').
What I am saying is DDR will not do what most people think due to the fact that the G4-CPU Apple is using in todays and yesterdays and last years systems will not take advantage of DDR (10.2 might change that with QE but that is still in the future and not now). Yet you still wanna continue to say that all Apple needs to do is have a mobo w/DDR+memory controller that supports it and all will be right with the world and everyone will suddenly be happy?!?!
Putting in DDR just for the sake of DDR wouldn't have made a bit of sence and the same people would be still yelling but instead it would have sounded something like this...
"Boy is Apple dumb... what was the point of putting in DDR in my system when it hardly got any benefit from it... Geez Dell... Gateway... etc don't seem to have any problems with their DDR - This sucks... next time I'm going Windows! "
What it really comes down to is DDR just didn't make sence unless MOT could provide a CPU that really supported it **OR** as a fall back they were able to design a system that could semi-work-around the MOT issues as Programmer said (ala QE). Is QE ready for prime time? Do we have any contract that states that it 100% will be (on any given date?)
And that brings us back to DDR... What's the point giving it to us last year or even in Feb/March when nothing would have changed and Apple would have had to suffer even more heat?!
ZDNet Headline would have read... "Apple adds DDR and users get ZERO benefit!"
Or even worse.. "DDR sparks rumors of future MOT chip.. Buyers should wait for the real thing..."
Remember it's not ALWAYS just about the technology but you always have to sell 'todays systems'. If you don't then you wont be here to build the systems of tomorrow.
Yet you still wanna say that all Apple needs to do is have a mobo w/DDR+memory controller that supports it and even if the CPU doesn't all will be right with the world?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I was saying is that, technically, the memory subsystem as implemented in the XServe is in fact a fully-fledged DDR implementation (well, as far as we can tell from the presentation).
Of course, you can have as fully-fledged a DDR-memory subsystem as you want, and it's still not going to be of any significant real-world value unless the rest of the system, especially the CPU-northbridge-connection a.k.a. FSB, is properly modified to be able to take advantage of it. Nonetheless, that doesn't make it any less a DDR memory subsystem.
[quote]<strong>
And that brings us back to DDR... What's the point?!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one, DDR modules are sort of slowly taking over the market, and it's just a matter of time until they will in fact be cheaper than SDR modules (just like PC133 nowadays is cheaper than PC66). So it doesn't hurt to be able to use those modules.
More importantly, it's quite possible that the new northbridge ASIC inside the XServe could actually more than just 133MHz MPX bus, and it's just the processor that is the limiting factor right now. In that case, it might be possible to continue using the very same ASIC once a processor with a faster FSB becomes available.
The old argument about having ample bandwidth for I/O also remains true, of course, though obviously more so in XServe than it would in PowerMacs.
Hey I'm not ranting against MOT, and I am very pro Apple so wouln't hype DDR untill Apple has it (fully) on board
see above edited comment.
Having some respect for your previous posts I thought you were hinting at something else about DDR that was being overlooked something more sinister... I realize now that I just came off very sarcastic which was not my intent.
BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines. I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull...
What it really comes down to is DDR just didn't make sence unless MOT could provide a CPU that really supported it **OR** as a fall back they were able to design a system that could semi-work-around the MOT issues as Programmer said (ala QE). Is QE ready for prime time? Do we have any contract that states that it 100% will be (on any given date?)
Hey I'm not ranting against MOT, and I am very pro Apple so wouln't hype DDR untill Apple has it (fully) on board
see above edited comment.
Having some respect for your previous posts I thought you were hinting at something else about DDR that was being overlooked something more sinister... I realize now that I just came off very sarcastic which was not my intent.
BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines. I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No problem... I too came off pretty heated but after hearing the same moans over and over I just lost my head...
Oh and YES!!!! You said something that I think we can all agree on...
[quote]"BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines."<hr></blockquote>
I also happen to agree with you on this but I wouldn't dare speak for 'the rest' of the forum on this one...
[quote]"I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull..."<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lemme get this straight....
For most, DDR has been ask for by people in this form for close to a year because they believe it will allow the CPU to perform better than it is now (when I say CPU I really mean the over-all experience while sitting in front of the screen doing 'stuff').
What I am saying is DDR will not do what most people think due to the fact that the G4-CPU Apple is using in todays and yesterdays and last years systems will not take advantage of DDR (10.2 might change that with QE but that is still in the future and not now). Yet you still wanna continue to say that all Apple needs to do is have a mobo w/DDR+memory controller that supports it and all will be right with the world and everyone will suddenly be happy?!?!
Putting in DDR just for the sake of DDR wouldn't have made a bit of sence and the same people would be still yelling but instead it would have sounded something like this...
"Boy is Apple dumb... what was the point of putting in DDR in my system when it hardly got any benefit from it... Geez Dell... Gateway... etc don't seem to have any problems with their DDR - This sucks... next time I'm going Windows!
What it really comes down to is DDR just didn't make sence unless MOT could provide a CPU that really supported it **OR** as a fall back they were able to design a system that could semi-work-around the MOT issues as Programmer said (ala QE). Is QE ready for prime time? Do we have any contract that states that it 100% will be (on any given date?)
And that brings us back to DDR... What's the point giving it to us last year or even in Feb/March when nothing would have changed and Apple would have had to suffer even more heat?!
ZDNet Headline would have read... "Apple adds DDR and users get ZERO benefit!"
Or even worse.. "DDR sparks rumors of future MOT chip.. Buyers should wait for the real thing..."
Remember it's not ALWAYS just about the technology but you always have to sell 'todays systems'. If you don't then you wont be here to build the systems of tomorrow.
Dave
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>
Lemme get this straight....
...
Yet you still wanna say that all Apple needs to do is have a mobo w/DDR+memory controller that supports it and even if the CPU doesn't all will be right with the world?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I was saying is that, technically, the memory subsystem as implemented in the XServe is in fact a fully-fledged DDR implementation (well, as far as we can tell from the presentation).
Of course, you can have as fully-fledged a DDR-memory subsystem as you want, and it's still not going to be of any significant real-world value unless the rest of the system, especially the CPU-northbridge-connection a.k.a. FSB, is properly modified to be able to take advantage of it. Nonetheless, that doesn't make it any less a DDR memory subsystem.
[quote]<strong>
And that brings us back to DDR... What's the point?!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one, DDR modules are sort of slowly taking over the market, and it's just a matter of time until they will in fact be cheaper than SDR modules (just like PC133 nowadays is cheaper than PC66). So it doesn't hurt to be able to use those modules.
More importantly, it's quite possible that the new northbridge ASIC inside the XServe could actually more than just 133MHz MPX bus, and it's just the processor that is the limiting factor right now. In that case, it might be possible to continue using the very same ASIC once a processor with a faster FSB becomes available.
The old argument about having ample bandwidth for I/O also remains true, of course, though obviously more so in XServe than it would in PowerMacs.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Hey I'm not ranting against MOT, and I am very pro Apple so wouln't hype DDR untill Apple has it (fully) on board
see above edited comment.
Having some respect for your previous posts I thought you were hinting at something else about DDR that was being overlooked something more sinister... I realize now that I just came off very sarcastic which was not my intent.
BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines. I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull...
<strong>
What it really comes down to is DDR just didn't make sence unless MOT could provide a CPU that really supported it **OR** as a fall back they were able to design a system that could semi-work-around the MOT issues as Programmer said (ala QE). Is QE ready for prime time? Do we have any contract that states that it 100% will be (on any given date?)
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
But, isn't that what most have been whining about lack of full DDR implementation on MOTO's G4 CPU??
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>
<strong>DaveGee
Hey I'm not ranting against MOT, and I am very pro Apple so wouln't hype DDR untill Apple has it (fully) on board
see above edited comment.
Having some respect for your previous posts I thought you were hinting at something else about DDR that was being overlooked something more sinister... I realize now that I just came off very sarcastic which was not my intent.
BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines. I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No problem... I too came off pretty heated but after hearing the same moans over and over I just lost my head...
Oh and YES!!!! You said something that I think we can all agree on...
[quote]"BTW I hold Apple responsible for maintaining their relationship w/ MOTO, and working out the best components for their machines."<hr></blockquote>
I also happen to agree with you on this but I wouldn't dare speak for 'the rest' of the forum on this one...
[quote]"I also don't think MOTO's past performance necessarily predicts their future performance. I try to remain hopefull..."<hr></blockquote>
Dave