Oh, and a note for JYD: Due to a phenomenon called "locality of reference," caches (and large register sets) are useful almost all of the time. The only real exceptions are big streams of memory, and MaxBus has streaming instructions efficient enough to just about reach its theoretical bandwidth reading and writing those streams. It's as fast or faster than PC DDR SDRAM implementations, although it can't keep up with RDRAM.<hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt that MaxBus is the most efficient 133MHz SDR system bus in existence, but do you have any evidence that it's as fast or faster than Athlon or Pentium 4 systems w/ DDR SDRAM?
Must we keep blabbering on about those damb PC'S. I came to this board
to read and discuss apple related topics. All i read most of the time is
constant dribble about PC's-Mgz & PC's. I would think that being apple
users there be more sopistication in topics of discusion.
Instead some of these so-called mac-addicts crap all over the company and the products they produce. How can you people keep comparing Mac's To Pc's. Every time I read that apple is" so behind the times with there pruducts" it makes want to vomit. Its like comparing apple to freakin oranges people. Yes X86 manufacturers make fast computers
with lots of memory and all the lastest and greatest implementations,
(so freakin what) most of the time its the bleeding edge not the leading edge.
In my opinion Apple will always have an upper hand over PC hardware and software manufacturers, for the simple but less obvious reason that Apples hardware and OS is made inhouse. Take a look at PC's (breifly) One company make the OS, several other companys make the
hardware, theres a bottleneck for ya. Go and ask any system designer or engineer if it makes a difference weather they worked at the same location as the hardware developers.
Don't ya think if Apple hasn't produce any new Powermacs in the last three years that theve been working on a new product that will be completly up to date with current demands of professional users.
Just because a (NEW) so-called standard has been adopted by one
company and has used it for so-lond does'nt mean Apple needs to adopt
it right away. Mac's are not Lego's people. You can't just throw it
in there without the proper test and development stages.
Finally to those who love flaping there gums about PC's and there mightyness why don't you go jump on there band wagon and leave
this Sophisticated Apple board to those who what to discuss actual
Don't forget, there are different types of DDR as well.
Apple with an Ace up its sleeve
Like maybe 400 Mhz DDR RAM
400 MHz bus - 200 double-pumped
1200 or 1600 MHz G4s
That sounds cool.
I'd prefer jus natural clockspeeds with one transfer per cycle - but I dunno the techie side of it very well. I suppose that the slowest parts of the Intel Pentium 4 run 4X slower than the fastest - I mean, why quad-pump the bus unless the processor's fastest part is wasting most of its time on a 1X or even 2X bus?
<strong>I still think you're bipolar--you should have that checked...This isn't a forum for insults, which is why I'm not being childish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sheesh. This speaks for itself.
[quote]Originally posted by Macasaurus:
<strong>What about DDR in PowerBooks?
Edit: Stupid side note, but DDR reminds me of Dance Dance Revolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, this poster's put his finger on it. Steve Jobs' "one more thing" at MWNY is going to be an annoucement that all future PowerBooks come with a Japanese exchange student jumping around frantically upon them.
<strong>Don't forget, there are different types of DDR as well.
Apple with an Ace up its sleeve
Like maybe 400 Mhz DDR RAM
400 MHz bus - 200 double-pumped
1200 or 1600 MHz G4s
That sounds cool.
I'd prefer jus natural clockspeeds with one transfer per cycle - but I dunno the techie side of it very well. I suppose that the slowest parts of the Intel Pentium 4 run 4X slower than the fastest - I mean, why quad-pump the bus unless the processor's fastest part is wasting most of its time on a 1X or even 2X bus?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, all the P4 runs at the chip clock speed, except for simple integer units which run at twice that speed. The bus is the external connection to the world, and the reason it is at such a low speed is electromagnetic interference. Putting things running at 400MHz on the motherboard would effetively make it ridculously expensive to produce with massive shielding of each trace of the bus etc., so they use a slow clock bus, and transmit more information by making use of each transition of the clock-good engineering practice.
The reason the upcoming hypertransport and rapidIO are able to run at much higher speeds is that they use low voltage differential signalling, massively reducing the interference, and narrower widths, and better grounding power supply provision. Using differential signalling for current busses would at least double the number of pins, and board traces, required leading to higher cost.
i think Apple needs to push the numbers..... RAM, HD, bus speeds, RAM speeds, HD speeds, etc....
it's pathetic how far behind they are with bus speeds. 133 just dosent cut it anymore. it has got to be 400+ for the PRo Desktops and at least 266 for the Con.Desktops. portables should all be 133.... i cant believe they are actually tryingto sell a notebook w/ a 100 MHz bus these days.
No, all the P4 runs at the chip clock speed, except for simple integer units which run at twice that speed. The bus is the external connection to the world, and the reason it is at such a low speed is electromagnetic interference. Putting things running at 400MHz on the motherboard would effetively make it ridculously expensive to produce with massive shielding of each trace of the bus etc., so they use a slow clock bus, and transmit more information by making use of each transition of the clock-good engineering practice.
The reason the upcoming hypertransport and rapidIO are able to run at much higher speeds is that they use low voltage differential signalling, massively reducing the interference, and narrower widths, and better grounding power supply provision. Using differential signalling for current busses would at least double the number of pins, and board traces, required leading to higher cost.
Michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's differential signaling, sending variable voltage amplitudes and frequecies down the traces?
What's differential signaling, sending variable voltage amplitudes and frequecies down the traces?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, its sending a signal down two traces, with the traces carrying opposite polarity signals, the signal is taken as the difference between the two traces. This reduces noise and electromagnetic radiation. Noise is reduced since any interference tends to be picked up equally on the two traces, so the difference signal is not affected, and the current drawn from the power supply remains constant, radiation is reduced as the two signals from the two traces are in anti-phase and tend to cancel each other out at any distance signficantly larger than the spacing between the traces. (this is basically the same as using twisted pair cable for signal transmission)
[quote]Originally posted by hotboxd:
<strong>
would a DDR mobo in the PBook create more heat? The PBook should always be at least as powerful as the iMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR actually runs a little bit cooler than SDR memory.
Comments
Oh, and a note for JYD: Due to a phenomenon called "locality of reference," caches (and large register sets) are useful almost all of the time. The only real exceptions are big streams of memory, and MaxBus has streaming instructions efficient enough to just about reach its theoretical bandwidth reading and writing those streams. It's as fast or faster than PC DDR SDRAM implementations, although it can't keep up with RDRAM.<hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt that MaxBus is the most efficient 133MHz SDR system bus in existence, but do you have any evidence that it's as fast or faster than Athlon or Pentium 4 systems w/ DDR SDRAM?
[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: Analogue bubblebath ]</p>
Must we keep blabbering on about those damb PC'S. I came to this board
to read and discuss apple related topics. All i read most of the time is
constant dribble about PC's-Mgz & PC's. I would think that being apple
users there be more sopistication in topics of discusion.
Instead some of these so-called mac-addicts crap all over the company and the products they produce. How can you people keep comparing Mac's To Pc's. Every time I read that apple is" so behind the times with there pruducts" it makes want to vomit. Its like comparing apple to freakin oranges people. Yes X86 manufacturers make fast computers
with lots of memory and all the lastest and greatest implementations,
(so freakin what) most of the time its the bleeding edge not the leading edge.
In my opinion Apple will always have an upper hand over PC hardware and software manufacturers, for the simple but less obvious reason that Apples hardware and OS is made inhouse. Take a look at PC's (breifly) One company make the OS, several other companys make the
hardware, theres a bottleneck for ya. Go and ask any system designer or engineer if it makes a difference weather they worked at the same location as the hardware developers.
Don't ya think if Apple hasn't produce any new Powermacs in the last three years that theve been working on a new product that will be completly up to date with current demands of professional users.
Just because a (NEW) so-called standard has been adopted by one
company and has used it for so-lond does'nt mean Apple needs to adopt
it right away. Mac's are not Lego's people. You can't just throw it
in there without the proper test and development stages.
Finally to those who love flaping there gums about PC's and there mightyness why don't you go jump on there band wagon and leave
this Sophisticated Apple board to those who what to discuss actual
topics of interest.
Furthurmore:
I like to thank the academy-and Mom........
[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: dmgeist ]</p>
Apple with an Ace up its sleeve
Like maybe 400 Mhz DDR RAM
400 MHz bus - 200 double-pumped
1200 or 1600 MHz G4s
That sounds cool.
I'd prefer jus natural clockspeeds with one transfer per cycle - but I dunno the techie side of it very well. I suppose that the slowest parts of the Intel Pentium 4 run 4X slower than the fastest - I mean, why quad-pump the bus unless the processor's fastest part is wasting most of its time on a 1X or even 2X bus?
Edit: Stupid side note, but DDR reminds me of Dance Dance Revolution.
[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: Macasaurus ]</p>
<strong>I still think you're bipolar--you should have that checked...This isn't a forum for insults, which is why I'm not being childish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sheesh. This speaks for itself.
[quote]Originally posted by Macasaurus:
<strong>What about DDR in PowerBooks?
Edit: Stupid side note, but DDR reminds me of Dance Dance Revolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, this poster's put his finger on it. Steve Jobs' "one more thing" at MWNY is going to be an annoucement that all future PowerBooks come with a Japanese exchange student jumping around frantically upon them.
<strong>Don't forget, there are different types of DDR as well.
Apple with an Ace up its sleeve
Like maybe 400 Mhz DDR RAM
400 MHz bus - 200 double-pumped
1200 or 1600 MHz G4s
That sounds cool.
I'd prefer jus natural clockspeeds with one transfer per cycle - but I dunno the techie side of it very well. I suppose that the slowest parts of the Intel Pentium 4 run 4X slower than the fastest - I mean, why quad-pump the bus unless the processor's fastest part is wasting most of its time on a 1X or even 2X bus?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, all the P4 runs at the chip clock speed, except for simple integer units which run at twice that speed. The bus is the external connection to the world, and the reason it is at such a low speed is electromagnetic interference. Putting things running at 400MHz on the motherboard would effetively make it ridculously expensive to produce with massive shielding of each trace of the bus etc., so they use a slow clock bus, and transmit more information by making use of each transition of the clock-good engineering practice.
The reason the upcoming hypertransport and rapidIO are able to run at much higher speeds is that they use low voltage differential signalling, massively reducing the interference, and narrower widths, and better grounding power supply provision. Using differential signalling for current busses would at least double the number of pins, and board traces, required leading to higher cost.
Michael
it's pathetic how far behind they are with bus speeds. 133 just dosent cut it anymore. it has got to be 400+ for the PRo Desktops and at least 266 for the Con.Desktops. portables should all be 133.... i cant believe they are actually tryingto sell a notebook w/ a 100 MHz bus these days.
<strong>
No, all the P4 runs at the chip clock speed, except for simple integer units which run at twice that speed. The bus is the external connection to the world, and the reason it is at such a low speed is electromagnetic interference. Putting things running at 400MHz on the motherboard would effetively make it ridculously expensive to produce with massive shielding of each trace of the bus etc., so they use a slow clock bus, and transmit more information by making use of each transition of the clock-good engineering practice.
The reason the upcoming hypertransport and rapidIO are able to run at much higher speeds is that they use low voltage differential signalling, massively reducing the interference, and narrower widths, and better grounding power supply provision. Using differential signalling for current busses would at least double the number of pins, and board traces, required leading to higher cost.
Michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's differential signaling, sending variable voltage amplitudes and frequecies down the traces?
Here's one look at it for 10% to 15% increase (which MPX already does better at)
<a href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q4/001030/athlon-15.html"; target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q4/001030/athlon-15.html</a>;
<strong>
What's differential signaling, sending variable voltage amplitudes and frequecies down the traces?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, its sending a signal down two traces, with the traces carrying opposite polarity signals, the signal is taken as the difference between the two traces. This reduces noise and electromagnetic radiation. Noise is reduced since any interference tends to be picked up equally on the two traces, so the difference signal is not affected, and the current drawn from the power supply remains constant, radiation is reduced as the two signals from the two traces are in anti-phase and tend to cancel each other out at any distance signficantly larger than the spacing between the traces. (this is basically the same as using twisted pair cable for signal transmission)
[quote]Originally posted by hotboxd:
<strong>
would a DDR mobo in the PBook create more heat? The PBook should always be at least as powerful as the iMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR actually runs a little bit cooler than SDR memory.
Michael