If, in order to get the required performance, modules must be used two at a time, it becomes impossible to have only 3 slots on a board.
Therefore can you tell me why I have 3 slots on my Asus nForce2 mobo ?
The doc for this mobo clearly say the following : To access DualDDR put two or three module of PC2700 (or PC3200).
That's a maximum memory of 1.5 GB. I don't think there is 1 GB PC2700 or 3200 modules on the market today.
I think MacBidouille is right about 4 bank of RAM. To have access to the DualDDR, you will need to put 2 or 4 identical modules of PC2700 (5.3 GBps or 3200 (6.4 GBps).
There is a lot of vendors out there who are selling DualDDR Memory Kit ( Crucial, Corsair, Geil, etc.) today.
Concerning ATA, Apple has 2 choices : ATA 100 or Serial ATA.
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
I refuse to call you an idiot, I'll just answer
Yes, those sets are unrelated. The 64-bitness of the PPC970 is notgiving it higher throughput, but the ability to execute 64-bit code and address larger amounts of data (than the G4/other 32-bit processors).
And the G4 does not have 3.2GB/s of bandwidth, the latest incarnation of the G4 MPX bus (167MHz, 64-bit) is not capable of pushing through more than 1,3GB/s theoretically.
I suggest that you look in this thread if you have further questions about the PPC 970 FSB.
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
You're a bit confused.
The 3.2GB/s and 6.4GB/s numbers both refer to the GigaBus, which is the bus the 970 uses. GigaBus is laid out like a boulevard, with two discrete paths going in opposite directions. Each path can transfer 3.2GB/s for a total bandwidth of 6.4GB/s.
MaxBus (aka MPX) is the G4's bus, and it's capable of about 1 GB/s in practice.
Neither number has anything to do with whether the processor is 32 bit or 64 bit. The variables involved in calculating bus bandwidth are: The clock speed of the bus, the width of the bus, and the efficiency of the bus. Both MaxBus and GigaBus are 64 bits wide: MaxBus can transfer 64 bits at a time either way, and GigaBus has two 32-bit paths. The higher bandwidth of the GigaBus is largely a result of its much higher effective clockspeed.
Off topic, a split infinitive is not universally considered to be a grammatical error. There are plenty of writers who consider this "error" to be Victorian nitpicking.
Frankly the rumored (from dubious "sources") mobos sound more like Xserve-shaped than G4/G5 shaped.
Apple has numerous products all using different mothboards so saying there exists an Apple mobo of some size/shape does not automatically suggest it is for the next G4/G5.
There could be yet another Xserve product (2/3U?) or a high end workstation model in addition to a more typical Apple desktop tower. Or this could just be a smokescreen by a "rumor" site that makes up stuff on par with MacOSRumors.com.
Thanks r-0X#Zapchud and Amorph. I didn't think it had anyting to do with it but it just seemed like too much of a coincidence to ignore. I am trying to learn as much as I can and these technical discussions are great.
Not an error at all, just an outdated notion of "proper" style. See here.
[/offtopic]
[OT]I think it's a little funny that you linked to a page published by a professor of computer science. Yes, the rules have been changing over the course of the last 100 years or so. Yes, the rule has its origins in the inability to "split" an infinitive in Latin.
Here's a direct link to the March 28 MacBidouille article about the PPC 970, just in case anybody else, like me, was looking for it.
I find it funny that MacBidouille distinguishes between rumors (presumably from sources) and speculation (presumably of their own making). In any case, all these rumors and specuation about the PPC 970 are bound to have some basis in reality, even if limited, that will bear fruit in the next six months.
Frankly the rumored (from dubious "sources") mobos sound more like Xserve-shaped than G4/G5 shaped.
Apple has numerous products all using different mothboards so saying there exists an Apple mobo of some size/shape does not automatically suggest it is for the next G4/G5.
There could be yet another Xserve product (2/3U?) or a high end workstation model in addition to a more typical Apple desktop tower. Or this could just be a smokescreen by a "rumor" site that makes up stuff on par with MacOSRumors.com.
You've nailed one of my own fears. These "longer and narrower" motherboards concerned me from the start, since Xserve boards are already longer and narrower than PM mobos. I sincerely hope the rumormongers have confirmation that these really are PM boards rather than simply assuming it. A lot of people are going to be rather ticked off it we end up with cool new 970-based Xserves this summer, while PMs get speed-bumped G4s. I can't believe Apple would actually do this, but stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that these really are Xserve boards and the info was deliberately leaked by Apple to throw everyone off the track. While we're all in a feeding frenzy over what a longer and narrower board might mean for the shape of the new PMs, they come out with something completely different.
And, as you suggest, it is possible MacBidouille just made all this up for the fun of it. We'll just have to wait for the answer, I guess.
You've nailed one of my own fears. These "longer and narrower" motherboards concerned me from the start, since Xserve boards are already longer and narrower than PM mobos. I sincerely hope the rumormongers have confirmation that these really are PM boards rather than simply assuming it. A lot of people are going to be rather ticked off it we end up with cool new 970-based Xserves this summer, while PMs get speed-bumped G4s. I can't believe Apple would actually do this, but stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that these really are Xserve boards and the info was deliberately leaked by Apple to throw everyone off the track. While we're all in a feeding frenzy over what a longer and narrower board might mean for the shape of the new PMs, they come out with something completely different.
And, as you suggest, it is possible MacBidouille just made all this up for the fun of it. We'll just have to wait for the answer, I guess.
Even if we have heard rumors only about these long and narrow motherboards, there can be other boards in production somewhere. It's possible that we'll see the 970 released in both the PowerMacs and the xServes at the same time, but with different motherboards.
Even if we have heard rumors only about these long and narrow motherboards, there can be other boards in production somewhere. It's possible that we'll see the 970 released in both the PowerMacs and the xServes at the same time, but with different motherboards.
Oh, I agree completely.
I meant to imply precisely that in suggesting that these boards were deliberately leaked to throw us off the track. Let everyone go nuts over the relatively unimportant Xserve boards (and let them think they are PM boards) so they forget to go looking for the real PM boards. That sort of thing would be completely consistent with Apple's "cloak and dagger" secrecy routine.
This all sounds quite paranoid, but as they say, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you!"
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
The current G4's frontside bus bandwidth is (why isn't the calculator in the Apple menu anymore )
167MHz clock rate, 1 transaction per clock (as opposed to the Athlon bus, which does 2 or the PIV bus, which does four).
64 bits (or eight bytes) wide
equals 1.34 Gigabytes/s total for all read and write traffic.
I don't know how fast the G4's L3 cache backside bus is: maybe that could be the source of the 3.2GB/s?
Bandwidth doesn't relate to the "bitness" of the CPU (typically the size of the largest integer it can cope with). The PowerPC 970 could be a 32 bit CPU without having to reduce the bandwidth.
actually, pics of the mobo reveal that there is only one "slot" on the PB 12" and iBook 12" the 128 MB soldered on the mobo sits there in four seperate 32MB chips.
For the love of God...why are people still shocked that the Apple menu changed? The Apple menu in Classic Mac OS used to handle all sorts of misc things that had nothing to do with each other...now it handles only one thing: system stuff. It's fine the way it is.
If you want your frickin' Apple menu back just shove a folder into the dock and paste a multicolored Apple on the folder. Same frickin' deal!
Comments
Originally posted by Anonymous Karma
And thank you, sir, for the example of how to appear ridiculous when speaking your own.
In this sentence alone, we have:
- a comma splice,
- a misplaced adverb, and
- a missing possessive.
Wow, I guess you had your face in the text book of proper grammar when the sarcasm plane flew over your head.
Originally posted by mmicist
If, in order to get the required performance, modules must be used two at a time, it becomes impossible to have only 3 slots on a board.
Therefore can you tell me why I have 3 slots on my Asus nForce2 mobo ?
The doc for this mobo clearly say the following : To access DualDDR put two or three module of PC2700 (or PC3200).
That's a maximum memory of 1.5 GB. I don't think there is 1 GB PC2700 or 3200 modules on the market today.
I think MacBidouille is right about 4 bank of RAM. To have access to the DualDDR, you will need to put 2 or 4 identical modules of PC2700 (5.3 GBps or 3200 (6.4 GBps).
There is a lot of vendors out there who are selling DualDDR Memory Kit ( Crucial, Corsair, Geil, etc.) today.
Concerning ATA, Apple has 2 choices : ATA 100 or Serial ATA.
Originally posted by chilleymac
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
I refuse to call you an idiot, I'll just answer
Yes, those sets are unrelated. The 64-bitness of the PPC970 is notgiving it higher throughput, but the ability to execute 64-bit code and address larger amounts of data (than the G4/other 32-bit processors).
And the G4 does not have 3.2GB/s of bandwidth, the latest incarnation of the G4 MPX bus (167MHz, 64-bit) is not capable of pushing through more than 1,3GB/s theoretically.
I suggest that you look in this thread if you have further questions about the PPC 970 FSB.
Originally posted by chilleymac
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
You're a bit confused.
The 3.2GB/s and 6.4GB/s numbers both refer to the GigaBus, which is the bus the 970 uses. GigaBus is laid out like a boulevard, with two discrete paths going in opposite directions. Each path can transfer 3.2GB/s for a total bandwidth of 6.4GB/s.
MaxBus (aka MPX) is the G4's bus, and it's capable of about 1 GB/s in practice.
Neither number has anything to do with whether the processor is 32 bit or 64 bit. The variables involved in calculating bus bandwidth are: The clock speed of the bus, the width of the bus, and the efficiency of the bus. Both MaxBus and GigaBus are 64 bits wide: MaxBus can transfer 64 bits at a time either way, and GigaBus has two 32-bit paths. The higher bandwidth of the GigaBus is largely a result of its much higher effective clockspeed.
Off topic, a split infinitive is not universally considered to be a grammatical error. There are plenty of writers who consider this "error" to be Victorian nitpicking.
Apple has numerous products all using different mothboards so saying there exists an Apple mobo of some size/shape does not automatically suggest it is for the next G4/G5.
There could be yet another Xserve product (2/3U?) or a high end workstation model in addition to a more typical Apple desktop tower. Or this could just be a smokescreen by a "rumor" site that makes up stuff on par with MacOSRumors.com.
Thanks Again
Originally posted by midwinter
The misplaced adverb is also a split infinitive. Less egregious an error than the comma splice, but an error nonetheless.
Not an error at all, just an outdated notion of "proper" style. See here.
[/offtopic]
Originally posted by Nonsuch
Not an error at all, just an outdated notion of "proper" style. See here.
[/offtopic]
[OT]I think it's a little funny that you linked to a page published by a professor of computer science.
But it still sounds funny.
Cheers[/OT]
I find it funny that MacBidouille distinguishes between rumors (presumably from sources) and speculation (presumably of their own making). In any case, all these rumors and specuation about the PPC 970 are bound to have some basis in reality, even if limited, that will bear fruit in the next six months.
Escher
Originally posted by Nitride
Frankly the rumored (from dubious "sources") mobos sound more like Xserve-shaped than G4/G5 shaped.
Apple has numerous products all using different mothboards so saying there exists an Apple mobo of some size/shape does not automatically suggest it is for the next G4/G5.
There could be yet another Xserve product (2/3U?) or a high end workstation model in addition to a more typical Apple desktop tower. Or this could just be a smokescreen by a "rumor" site that makes up stuff on par with MacOSRumors.com.
You've nailed one of my own fears. These "longer and narrower" motherboards concerned me from the start, since Xserve boards are already longer and narrower than PM mobos. I sincerely hope the rumormongers have confirmation that these really are PM boards rather than simply assuming it. A lot of people are going to be rather ticked off it we end up with cool new 970-based Xserves this summer, while PMs get speed-bumped G4s. I can't believe Apple would actually do this, but stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that these really are Xserve boards and the info was deliberately leaked by Apple to throw everyone off the track. While we're all in a feeding frenzy over what a longer and narrower board might mean for the shape of the new PMs, they come out with something completely different.
And, as you suggest, it is possible MacBidouille just made all this up for the fun of it. We'll just have to wait for the answer, I guess.
Originally posted by TJM
You've nailed one of my own fears. These "longer and narrower" motherboards concerned me from the start, since Xserve boards are already longer and narrower than PM mobos. I sincerely hope the rumormongers have confirmation that these really are PM boards rather than simply assuming it. A lot of people are going to be rather ticked off it we end up with cool new 970-based Xserves this summer, while PMs get speed-bumped G4s. I can't believe Apple would actually do this, but stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that these really are Xserve boards and the info was deliberately leaked by Apple to throw everyone off the track. While we're all in a feeding frenzy over what a longer and narrower board might mean for the shape of the new PMs, they come out with something completely different.
And, as you suggest, it is possible MacBidouille just made all this up for the fun of it. We'll just have to wait for the answer, I guess.
Even if we have heard rumors only about these long and narrow motherboards, there can be other boards in production somewhere. It's possible that we'll see the 970 released in both the PowerMacs and the xServes at the same time, but with different motherboards.
Originally posted by NETROMac
Even if we have heard rumors only about these long and narrow motherboards, there can be other boards in production somewhere. It's possible that we'll see the 970 released in both the PowerMacs and the xServes at the same time, but with different motherboards.
Oh, I agree completely.
I meant to imply precisely that in suggesting that these boards were deliberately leaked to throw us off the track. Let everyone go nuts over the relatively unimportant Xserve boards (and let them think they are PM boards) so they forget to go looking for the real PM boards. That sort of thing would be completely consistent with Apple's "cloak and dagger" secrecy routine.
This all sounds quite paranoid, but as they say, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you!"
I usually try to stay out of these technical discussions because they get over my head. But I was wondering I hear these specs about throughput being 6.4 gb/s on the 970 and 3.2 gb/s on the G4. Do those numbers relate directly to the 64bit and 32bit architectures or are these two sets unrelated. Call me an idiot for asking if you wish, but I just want to know.
The current G4's frontside bus bandwidth is (why isn't the calculator in the Apple menu anymore
167MHz clock rate, 1 transaction per clock (as opposed to the Athlon bus, which does 2 or the PIV bus, which does four).
64 bits (or eight bytes) wide
equals 1.34 Gigabytes/s total for all read and write traffic.
I don't know how fast the G4's L3 cache backside bus is: maybe that could be the source of the 3.2GB/s?
Bandwidth doesn't relate to the "bitness" of the CPU (typically the size of the largest integer it can cope with). The PowerPC 970 could be a 32 bit CPU without having to reduce the bandwidth.
Originally posted by Eugene
The only Macs without an even number of memory slots available now are the iBook and 12" PB.
Two isn't an even number? Just because you can't easily get to one of the slots on those 'Books doesn't mean that they're not there.
Originally posted by Stoo
JLL, are you suggesting that the built in RAM isn't soldered on the iBook/PowerBook 12"?
Even if it's soldered, it's still a place to have RAM.
Originally posted by KidRed
...thanks for the great examples of how to absolutely look ridiculous when speaking someone else language.
No worries about that, US presidents do it every day.
Originally posted by Stoo
...(why isn't the calculator in the Apple menu anymore...
Because Uncle Steve knows best - the Apple Menu is just a confusing metaphor, the Dock is clearly a superior and more thought-out model.
If you want your frickin' Apple menu back just shove a folder into the dock and paste a multicolored Apple on the folder. Same frickin' deal!