I hate to burst your bubble but it definitely has the limit. The chipset is 32-bit and can only access a total of 4GB of physical memory. It has to map the I/O space for peripherals somewhere. I've read the appropriate chipset documentation.
Yes it does. Don't forget, it's the North Bridge that addresses the RAM, and the current North Bridge is part of Napa, a 32 bit chipset. The 3.2 GB problem will go away with Santa Rosa.
Presumably, with Santa Rosa + Tiger, you'll get 4 GB max system memory, and with Santa Rosa + Leopard, you'll get a max system memory size much greater than the amount of RAM you can fit into a laptop.
Yes it does. Don't forget, it's the North Bridge that addresses the RAM, and the current North Bridge is part of Napa, a 32 bit chipset. The 3.2 GB problem will go away with Santa Rosa.
Presumably, with Santa Rosa + Tiger, you'll get 4 GB max system memory, and with Santa Rosa + Leopard, you'll get a max system memory size much greater than the amount of RAM you can fit into a laptop.
Something I hadn't thought of, but this brings it to mind.
Is Tiger on Intel, totally 32 bit? Not the combo of the chips and the OS, but the OS itself? Are there any 64 bit libraries?
I would think there must be, otherwise it couldn't address more than 4GB in the Mac Pro.
XP 32 bit version doesn't work on 64 bit machines, as far as I know. That's because it DOESN'T have 64 bit libraries.
Is Tiger on Intel, totally 32 bit? Not the combo of the chips and the OS, but the OS itself? Are there any 64 bit libraries?
Doh! Brain not fully in gear! Yes, Tiger has 64 bit libraries and can address more than 4 GB RAM. Therefore, the problem disappears with Santa Rosa, regardless of OS (except with Tiger, GUI apps can't individually address more than 4 GB RAM).
I thought XP 32 worked on Athlon 64 and Intel chips with EM64T without issue. It just won't run in 64 bit mode because of the code.
Maybe somene here can clear it up, but as far as I know, you need XP 64 to work on a 64 bit machine. I think 64 MAY run on a 32 bit machine, but I'm not sure about that either.
But, you may be right about the 64 bit mode thing. It won't be able to address more than 4GB in any case, though Tiger does.
That's why Tiger works properly on the MacPro, and MBP.
While the Santa Rosa chipset might be required for Tiger to run more than 3GB RAM on the laptop, I see no reason why we need Leopard for that. Leopard just brings 64 bits to the other areas of the OS that Tiger didn't address.
I want to pick one of these up in the future for school, but it would be nice if there were a couple other minor things changed. Maybe a minor price reduction, a little less for the apple care plan (I know that the laptops are more prone to problems than the iMac and Mac Pro, but still, it seems a little steep; although worth it in the long run. Also, if I'm going to be spending that much on a laptop, it better be cool enough to be on my lap. There just minor things, and if they don't happen I'll probably still pick 1 up in the next update.
I would just like to point out to everyone that this reasoning indicates that Apple Marketing set the price EXACTLY right.
The perfect price is the one that, if it were any higher, you wouldn't buy it.
So one person thinks that the price is a little steep but will buy anyway, and that makes the price spot-on?
AppleCare is a rip-off next to competitors' extended warranties and third-party insurance. In fact, Dell offer 3 years standard warranty on machines that have prices comparable to Apple's (without AppleCare).
If Apple machines really are higher quality than Dell, how come Apple have to charge so much for their warranties? AppleCare doesn't cover accidental damage does it?
Mobility X1700 is faster than the X1600 with the same (or possibly lower) power usage. Only reason for Apple not to use X1700 is to fatten their profit margin.
I can't find wattage specs for GeForce Go 7700, which probably means it's not as efficient as the competition
GeForce Go 7900 GS outperforms the X1800 (yes, that's an 8), and its TDP is 20 watts (vs 17 for the X1600/X1700), which makes it about the optimal GPU for a larger portable right now. Too bad it's not in the MBP 17.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Maybe somene here can clear it up, but as far as I know, you need XP 64 to work on a 64 bit machine. I think 64 MAY run on a 32 bit machine, but I'm not sure about that either.
No, the x86-64 CPUs from both Intel and AMD fully support 32 bit OSes (Lin/Mac/Win/etc), and in most cases are faster at it than their 32 bit relatives.
Mobility X1700 is faster than the X1600 with the same (or possibly lower) power usage. Only reason for Apple not to use X1700 is to fatten their profit margin.
Can you provide actual numbers on this, in terms of power usage, and in terms of how widely available and realistic to deploy the MR X1700 is? Is "fatten their profit margin" your conjecture, or can you actually back it up?
I absolutely stand behind my performance statement, because the X1700 is exactly the same as X1600 except that it's on strained silicon. Every scientific report and chip manufacturer in the world will tell you that strained silicon is faster than the plain variety at equal power levels.
However, I found the real reason why Apple isn't using it. ATI's announcement back in September was only a paper launch. 5 weeks later, it isn't shipping in sufficient quantity to get a single new model from Asus out the door, much less the MBP line.
Being a member of the reality-based community sucks sometimes.
I absolutely stand behind my performance statement, because the X1700 is exactly the same as X1600 except that it's on strained silicon. Every scientific report and chip manufacturer in the world will tell you that strained silicon is faster than the plain variety at equal power levels.
However, I found the real reason why Apple isn't using it. ATI's announcement back in September was only a paper launch. 5 weeks later, it isn't shipping in sufficient quantity to get a single new model from Asus out the door, much less the MBP line.
Being a member of the reality-based community sucks sometimes.
frankie, where is the x1700 link that proves your point?
I've seen evidence that the x1700 / x1600 performance is almost identical, but with less heat output. thx.
From what frankie says, if the x1700 and x1600 are clocked at the same rate, they should have exactly equal performance, but the x1700 will require less power and generate less heat. Alternatively, for a given clock-rate on the x1600, the x1700 can be clocked higher (giving greater performance) and have the same power consumption and heat generation as the lower-clocked x1600.
From what frankie says, if the x1700 and x1600 are clocked at the same rate, they should have exactly equal performance, but the x1700 will require less power and generate less heat. Alternatively, for a given clock-rate on the x1600, the x1700 can be clocked higher (giving greater performance) and have the same power consumption and heat generation as the lower-clocked x1600.
It looks like the x1700 has 5-10% higher performance with 20% less power consumption.
Comments
In a nutshell, yes.
Not in this notebook. The 3.2GB limit is imposed by the chipset.
Not in this notebook. The 3.2GB limit is imposed by the chipset.
The chipset has no such 3.2 GB limit.
The chipset has no such 3.2 GB limit.
I hate to burst your bubble but it definitely has the limit. The chipset is 32-bit and can only access a total of 4GB of physical memory. It has to map the I/O space for peripherals somewhere. I've read the appropriate chipset documentation.
The chipset has no such 3.2 GB limit.
Yes it does. Don't forget, it's the North Bridge that addresses the RAM, and the current North Bridge is part of Napa, a 32 bit chipset. The 3.2 GB problem will go away with Santa Rosa.
Presumably, with Santa Rosa + Tiger, you'll get 4 GB max system memory, and with Santa Rosa + Leopard, you'll get a max system memory size much greater than the amount of RAM you can fit into a laptop.
Yes it does. Don't forget, it's the North Bridge that addresses the RAM, and the current North Bridge is part of Napa, a 32 bit chipset. The 3.2 GB problem will go away with Santa Rosa.
Presumably, with Santa Rosa + Tiger, you'll get 4 GB max system memory, and with Santa Rosa + Leopard, you'll get a max system memory size much greater than the amount of RAM you can fit into a laptop.
Something I hadn't thought of, but this brings it to mind.
Is Tiger on Intel, totally 32 bit? Not the combo of the chips and the OS, but the OS itself? Are there any 64 bit libraries?
I would think there must be, otherwise it couldn't address more than 4GB in the Mac Pro.
XP 32 bit version doesn't work on 64 bit machines, as far as I know. That's because it DOESN'T have 64 bit libraries.
XP 32 bit version doesn't work on 64 bit machines, as far as I know. That's because it DOESN'T have 64 bit libraries.
I thought XP 32 worked on Athlon 64 and Intel chips with EM64T without issue. It just won't run in 64 bit mode because of the code.
Is Tiger on Intel, totally 32 bit? Not the combo of the chips and the OS, but the OS itself? Are there any 64 bit libraries?
Doh! Brain not fully in gear! Yes, Tiger has 64 bit libraries and can address more than 4 GB RAM. Therefore, the problem disappears with Santa Rosa, regardless of OS (except with Tiger, GUI apps can't individually address more than 4 GB RAM).
I thought XP 32 worked on Athlon 64 and Intel chips with EM64T without issue. It just won't run in 64 bit mode because of the code.
Maybe somene here can clear it up, but as far as I know, you need XP 64 to work on a 64 bit machine. I think 64 MAY run on a 32 bit machine, but I'm not sure about that either.
But, you may be right about the 64 bit mode thing. It won't be able to address more than 4GB in any case, though Tiger does.
That's why Tiger works properly on the MacPro, and MBP.
While the Santa Rosa chipset might be required for Tiger to run more than 3GB RAM on the laptop, I see no reason why we need Leopard for that. Leopard just brings 64 bits to the other areas of the OS that Tiger didn't address.
I want to pick one of these up in the future for school, but it would be nice if there were a couple other minor things changed. Maybe a minor price reduction, a little less for the apple care plan (I know that the laptops are more prone to problems than the iMac and Mac Pro, but still, it seems a little steep; although worth it in the long run. Also, if I'm going to be spending that much on a laptop, it better be cool enough to be on my lap. There just minor things, and if they don't happen I'll probably still pick 1 up in the next update.
I would just like to point out to everyone that this reasoning indicates that Apple Marketing set the price EXACTLY right.
"A little steep but I will buy it anyway." BINGO.
I would just like to point out to everyone that this reasoning indicates that Apple Marketing set the price EXACTLY right.
"A little steep but I will buy it anyway." BINGO.
Same thing, appearently for the Apple Care Plan: "seems a little steep; although worth it in the long run.".
If it's worth it in the long run, then it isn't a little steep.
The perfect price is the one that, if it were any higher, you wouldn't buy it.
So one person thinks that the price is a little steep but will buy anyway, and that makes the price spot-on?
AppleCare is a rip-off next to competitors' extended warranties and third-party insurance. In fact, Dell offer 3 years standard warranty on machines that have prices comparable to Apple's (without AppleCare).
If Apple machines really are higher quality than Dell, how come Apple have to charge so much for their warranties? AppleCare doesn't cover accidental damage does it?
Maybe somene here can clear it up, but as far as I know, you need XP 64 to work on a 64 bit machine. I think 64 MAY run on a 32 bit machine, but I'm not sure about that either.
No, the x86-64 CPUs from both Intel and AMD fully support 32 bit OSes (Lin/Mac/Win/etc), and in most cases are faster at it than their 32 bit relatives.
FWIW:
Can you provide actual numbers on this, in terms of power usage, and in terms of how widely available and realistic to deploy the MR X1700 is? Is "fatten their profit margin" your conjecture, or can you actually back it up?
However, I found the real reason why Apple isn't using it. ATI's announcement back in September was only a paper launch. 5 weeks later, it isn't shipping in sufficient quantity to get a single new model from Asus out the door, much less the MBP line.
Being a member of the reality-based community sucks sometimes.
I've seen evidence that the x1700 / x1600 performance is almost identical, but with less heat output. thx.
I absolutely stand behind my performance statement, because the X1700 is exactly the same as X1600 except that it's on strained silicon. Every scientific report and chip manufacturer in the world will tell you that strained silicon is faster than the plain variety at equal power levels.
However, I found the real reason why Apple isn't using it. ATI's announcement back in September was only a paper launch. 5 weeks later, it isn't shipping in sufficient quantity to get a single new model from Asus out the door, much less the MBP line.
Being a member of the reality-based community sucks sometimes.
That's not an answer.
frankie, where is the x1700 link that proves your point?
I've seen evidence that the x1700 / x1600 performance is almost identical, but with less heat output. thx.
From what frankie says, if the x1700 and x1600 are clocked at the same rate, they should have exactly equal performance, but the x1700 will require less power and generate less heat. Alternatively, for a given clock-rate on the x1600, the x1700 can be clocked higher (giving greater performance) and have the same power consumption and heat generation as the lower-clocked x1600.
From what frankie says, if the x1700 and x1600 are clocked at the same rate, they should have exactly equal performance, but the x1700 will require less power and generate less heat. Alternatively, for a given clock-rate on the x1600, the x1700 can be clocked higher (giving greater performance) and have the same power consumption and heat generation as the lower-clocked x1600.
It looks like the x1700 has 5-10% higher performance with 20% less power consumption.
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/ind...=155&Itemid=29
It will be interesting to see if this same thing can be done to other chips (memory, CPU, etc). The process is patented by AMD and IBM:
http://www.physorg.com/preview2338.html