970s real advantage - 64 & 32 bit at the same time

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
The 970's real advantage comes when you look at the 64 bit competition.



As Steve will say:

4GB is crap. Wanna see 4GB go by? Watch uncompressed lowly NTSC video (1MB/frame) for 4000 frames, ie: about 2 minutes of video! WE NEED 64 to get the job done. It is also easy to dream up games that use worlds that have multiple gigs of textures. A map of Earth at 200 meter resolution uses up well over 10GB of texture memory. Programming such applications in 32 bit is as much a pain as was trying to write ms word in 16 bit.





Itanium: Intel says it will only be in consumer/workstations in a few years. Intel is Ostrich-like on 64 bit.

"It could be the end of the decade" before mainstream desktops need more than 4GB of memory, one of the chief reasons to move to 64-bit chips, Justin Rattner, a senior fellow at Intel, said during an interview at the Intel Developer Forum taking place here this week.



Mr. Rattner's comments echoed statements from Intel President Paul Otellini, who said in an interview last year that Intel may not be compelled to produce a 64-bit desktop chip until 2008 or even 2009. "(1)



Also, look at the speed that an itanium 64 bit OS (which is a lot of work to write BTW) will run 32 bit apps at. Think Pentium 500 if you are lucky.



Then look at AMD. They have a better crossover solution at hand, but for the AMD opteron to run 64 bit code it has to 'switch modes', a slow process. "...By contrast, AMD uses a 64-bit prefix in front of X86 instructions to tag a 64-bit operation. The technique requires referring to separate 64-bit registers and extended memory addresses. That method is "very elegant in terms of not disrupting the X86 architecture but may not be able to support mixed 32- and 64-bit operations as well as IBM's approach," said McCarron of Mercury Research."(3)



Can't wait.



--Knobsturner





(1) <a href="http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030221.gt64/GTStory"; target="_blank">http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030221.gt64/GTStory</a>;



(2) <a href="http://www.hardwaresite.net/x86-64.html"; target="_blank">http://www.hardwaresite.net/x86-64.html</a>;



(3)http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021014S0059
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    If Apple gets out of the low-end 64-bit gate first, coupled with its Unix core, it will succeed. No more question.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    The x86 world is in chaos over this 64-bit transition. Intel is betting the farm on Itanium, but has no (public) plans for the desktop market. AMD has the Hammer and Opteron coming out soon, but no 64-bit OS for it yet. MS is apparently dragging their heels (collusion with Intel??). Neither Intel nor AMD has shown much foresight or even competence thus far.



    While the x86 world is playing Keystone Kops, Apple has its ducks in a row for this transition. As the business world winces at the carnage in the Wintel world, Apple is going to look substantially more serious and "grown up" than the others. The FUD machines at Microsoft and Intel are going to be working overtime to try to keep their traditional markets in line. Could get quite interesting.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Sorry to disrupt your multi-GB RAM fantasies, but keep in mind that the amount of money people are willing to spend on RAM is limited, and the price of RAM only falls so fast. It's hard to imagine it being economically viable for Apple to make machines with over $2,000 of RAM in them.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>Sorry to disrupt your multi-GB RAM fantasies, but keep in mind that the amount of money people are willing to spend on RAM is limited, and the price of RAM only falls so fast. It's hard to imagine it being economically viable for Apple to make machines with over $2,000 of RAM in them.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    businesses and professionals would LOVE over 4gb of ram...which is a key market (and who buy the most) powermacs from apple. they will pay...specially if its an BTW option
  • Reply 5 of 33
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I get the impression that 64-bitness isn't that big of a deal for the vast majority of computer users. However, it should produce just the kind of spec-envy that most of the computer world seems to be obsessed with, regardless of substantive importance.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    damndjdamndj Posts: 12member
    Only if they buy the RAM at the Apple store would it be prohibitive.



    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>Sorry to disrupt your multi-GB RAM fantasies, but keep in mind that the amount of money people are willing to spend on RAM is limited, and the price of RAM only falls so fast. It's hard to imagine it being economically viable for Apple to make machines with over $2,000 of RAM in them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 7 of 33
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]businesses and professionals would LOVE over 4gb of ram...which is a key market (and who buy the most) powermacs from apple. they will pay...specially if its an BTW option<hr></blockquote>

    [quote]Only if they buy the RAM at the Apple store would it be prohibitive.<hr></blockquote>Try some reality. PC3200 memory, DDR-400, which would provide some of the bandwidth necessary for the 970 is selling for about $150/512MB stick. 4GB of RAM equals ~$1200. This is not PC133 pricing.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    Would the RAM to be used by the 970 be proprietary to the 970? Would manufacturers like Crucial make the RAM? Or would it be made by IBM only?



    And there isnothingprohibitive about having a high max-RAM capacity. How many people actually have 2 gigs on their Powermacs right now? Not many. Having a 4 gig capacity means that professionals can have a lot, and people that have the need for that much RAM usually have the money. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 9 of 33
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>Sorry to disrupt your multi-GB RAM fantasies, but keep in mind that the amount of money people are willing to spend on RAM is limited, and the price of RAM only falls so fast. It's hard to imagine it being economically viable for Apple to make machines with over $2,000 of RAM in them.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But that sword cuts both ways. If Intel or AMD want to brag about 64-bit address space, they're going to have to supply multi-GB of RAM, too. So that problem's a wash. As long as Apple is using commodity RAM, it costs the same for everybody.
  • Reply 10 of 33
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    You don't have toprovide 4 gigs...most people will end up with a quarter of that.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,312member
    How did this thread veer off into Apple providing RAM. As always you have a ceiling technically on RAM and the End User will decide how close they need to be to that ceiling.



    I tend to laugh when people talk about RAM being prohibitively expensive. When I bought my 7200/75 eons ago 16MB chips were $799. Of course apps didn't utilize what they do nowadays but nonetheless RAM prices today are fair.
  • Reply 12 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by knobs:

    <strong>Then look at AMD. They have a better crossover solution at hand, but for the AMD opteron to run 64 bit code it has to 'switch modes', a slow process. "...By contrast, AMD uses a 64-bit prefix in front of X86 instructions to tag a 64-bit operation. The technique requires referring to separate 64-bit registers and extended memory addresses. That method is "very elegant in terms of not disrupting the X86 architecture but may not be able to support mixed 32- and 64-bit operations as well as IBM's approach," said McCarron of Mercury Research."(3)



    (2) <a href="http://www.hardwaresite.net/x86-64.html"; target="_blank">http://www.hardwaresite.net/x86-64.html</a>;



    (3) <a href="http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021014S0059"; target="_blank">http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021014S0059</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;



    About 1/2 way down your second ref it says that the 64 bit mode can run 16 and 32 bit programs in compatibily type way. So why switch modes from Long (64 bit) to Protected (32 bit)? Just stay in Long and switch the compatibilty bit on & off as needed.



    Can someone who knows about this stuff help me out?

    MM
  • Reply 13 of 33
    frostymmbfrostymmb Posts: 131member
    [quote] Try some reality. PC3200 memory, DDR-400, which would provide some of the bandwidth necessary for the 970 is selling for about $150/512MB stick. 4GB of RAM equals ~$1200. This is not PC133 pricing.<hr></blockquote>



    Sorry to contribute the RAM discussion, but the (current) reality is that PC3200 sells for under $75 for a 512MB DIMM. Countless resellers have them marked at that price. Check pricewatch.com before blindly reporting a market price for anything hardware related.
  • Reply 14 of 33
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Check pricewatch.com before blindly reporting a market price for anything hardware related.<hr></blockquote>Actually the low on Pricewatch is $69. The $150 is a rough median of prices quoted for PC3200, which ranges from $69 to a high of $350.



    Anything else you want to teach about me about the web, or self-righteousness?
  • Reply 15 of 33
    knobsknobs Posts: 8member
    If 4GB of RAM is currently about $600, then by intels 2008 transition time, they will be selling a desktop chip that can address about $60 worth or RAM. This is just not going to happen.
  • Reply 16 of 33
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Actually, the G4 (and maybe P4) uses 36 bit addressing. This allows for 64GB of physical RAM (though to the best of my knowledge each individual thread is still limited to 4GB). For what it's worth, the PPC 970's 42 bit addressing lets you use up to 4 TB of memory.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    frostymmbfrostymmb Posts: 131member
    [quote] Actually the low on Pricewatch is $69. The $150 is a rough median of prices quoted for PC3200, which ranges from $69 to a high of $350.



    Anything else you want to teach about me about the web, or self-righteousness? <hr></blockquote>



    Am I wrong, or is $69 under $75? Maybe you want to argue that the average dollar store sells some things for 99 cents? It's a dollar store!



    Who in their right mind is going to pay a 'median' price of $150 when they can get it for less than half the price. (Remember 'less than' means any number below the first on the number scale, and 'half' would mean that you divide the original value by two. I assume that since you used the word median you know these things already, but you seemed confused by my first post, so I thought I'd clarify just in case.)



    Cut this rediculousness. Don't point and yell 'self-righteous!' when someone points out your error.



    If you can't take the sarcasm in this post, don't trash up the thread any further with a whiney reply.



    I'm so very sorry that I corrected you.



    [ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 33
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:

    <strong>Who in their right mind is going to pay a 'median' price of $150 when they can get it for less than half the price.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    As a number of OS 9 users discovered when 10.1 came out and they switched over, OS X is intolerant of bad RAM. OS 9 was accomodating, at the expense of efficiency.



    Apple doesn't use the cheapest RAM they can find. Nor does any OS X user who wants their system to keep purring along. So the price of RAM from a reputable vendor is the relevant benchmark here, because you tend to get what you pay for.
  • Reply 19 of 33
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    People are forgetting something. Most desktop computers only have 2 - 4 RAM slots. That means the price of 512 MB RAM isn't important. What's important is the price of 1GB or 2GB RAM and that is significatly more expensive.



    Furthermore when I bought a computer in 2000 it shipped with 256 MB of RAM. To buy the same level now I would get 512 MB after 3 years. Intel is right when they say RAM really isn't advancing that fast. Very few markets actually need 64 bit computing and a lot that do already use 64 bit hardware.



    [ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 33
    myahmacmyahmac Posts: 222member
    ok as soom as you guys mentioned ram i thought pricewatch. two, just necause you see a low price doesnt mean its cheap ram. just like with anything you do the homework. i got my 512 off of price watch and its very nice. but i paid 112 for it back in nov. now its like 41. just three days ago it was 47. for those who say ram prices havent been dropping i really beg to differ. between when i first bought my dual 867 and now now is 25% of the cos t of what it was then. say between now and sept. prices for one gig will be about 150. then the tings start selling and people want to upgrade them. by that time 1 gig will be a drop in the bucket for a consumer. if the market continues the way it has. and i know that it probabaly wont, look what happened with lcd's. but lcd's are finaly going back down again. so its all good. i might be able to get my 17 incher after all javascript:%20x()
Sign In or Register to comment.