macbidouille Mars28 info on 970
Crude babel fish translation but what the heck!
"Attention, all that follows is not rumour, we leave the principle just that APPLE will adopt in an immediate future the PPC 970. Nowadays, nothing resembles one Mac more than a PC. If one puts side the processor and OS, all that is in the machine has a common origin. One thus can, by extrapolation to try to guess technologies which APPLE in its next machines will use. - For storage, APPLE will have the choice between the ATA 133 or Serial ATA This last standard appears too young person us, the too rare and expensive discs to be adopted only. - Currently the bus system of top-of-the-range G4 is to 167 MHz all manufacturers PC must leave for this summer of the products supporting a bus to 200Mhz. One can thus think that APPLE will make in the same way, especially if one considers the following point. - Whereas G4 has a bus report completely skimped and completely exceeded by the current flows report, the PPC 970 can exchange 6,4 Go of data per seconds. However GDR to 200 MHz (PC3200) has a flow of 3,2 Go/s. The solution would be without exit if one did not look at what was done in world PC With its NForce, NVidia introduced a named technology DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way. - If to gain in performances, one must use bars 2 by 2, it becomes unthinkable to have only 3 sites report. One can thus count on a return of 4 slots memory, for a maximum of 4 Go of RAM, which will not pose the least problem with the PPC 970. To finish, we remind certain people in the doubt that the PPC 970 has only a core contrary to Power4, but which it supports fully the symmetrical multiprocessing. On G4, it is a bug trailing since the origin which a long time prevented from simultaneously putting more than 2 processors. The 970 does not have a concern. One will be able to even dream in the future with a solution octo processor under X to make profitable l?achat of Silicon Grail or to make Final Cut Pro a true solution of assembly in real time."
What I found most interesting was the notion of using pairs of DIMMs per CPU. It is consistent with other information.
1. single and dual CPUs would need different motherboards as reported elsewere.
2. With dual DIMMs per CPU it would mean that memory had to be installer in muliples of 4. So a resonable minimum of DIMM slots would be 8 or 12
for the dual and 4 to 6 for the single.
This could the SP-SP-DP configuration. That is if
A. It is expensive to have 8, 12 or even more DIMM slots
B The RAM really adds up.
I assume that the smallest DIMMs aviable is 128 but the price difference really make the 256 better so that will be RAm in multiples of 1 GB
With no L3 cache and some serious speed the 970 seem to need all the bus speed it can get 8)
The last time we had towers with 12 memory slots was the 9600! When the single 200 MHz came out it was 3700 dollar and the dual 200 MHz was 4700 dollar.
The general trend is that motherboards get smaller and smaller over time but that many DIMM slots will take up some space!
"Attention, all that follows is not rumour, we leave the principle just that APPLE will adopt in an immediate future the PPC 970. Nowadays, nothing resembles one Mac more than a PC. If one puts side the processor and OS, all that is in the machine has a common origin. One thus can, by extrapolation to try to guess technologies which APPLE in its next machines will use. - For storage, APPLE will have the choice between the ATA 133 or Serial ATA This last standard appears too young person us, the too rare and expensive discs to be adopted only. - Currently the bus system of top-of-the-range G4 is to 167 MHz all manufacturers PC must leave for this summer of the products supporting a bus to 200Mhz. One can thus think that APPLE will make in the same way, especially if one considers the following point. - Whereas G4 has a bus report completely skimped and completely exceeded by the current flows report, the PPC 970 can exchange 6,4 Go of data per seconds. However GDR to 200 MHz (PC3200) has a flow of 3,2 Go/s. The solution would be without exit if one did not look at what was done in world PC With its NForce, NVidia introduced a named technology DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way. - If to gain in performances, one must use bars 2 by 2, it becomes unthinkable to have only 3 sites report. One can thus count on a return of 4 slots memory, for a maximum of 4 Go of RAM, which will not pose the least problem with the PPC 970. To finish, we remind certain people in the doubt that the PPC 970 has only a core contrary to Power4, but which it supports fully the symmetrical multiprocessing. On G4, it is a bug trailing since the origin which a long time prevented from simultaneously putting more than 2 processors. The 970 does not have a concern. One will be able to even dream in the future with a solution octo processor under X to make profitable l?achat of Silicon Grail or to make Final Cut Pro a true solution of assembly in real time."
What I found most interesting was the notion of using pairs of DIMMs per CPU. It is consistent with other information.
1. single and dual CPUs would need different motherboards as reported elsewere.
2. With dual DIMMs per CPU it would mean that memory had to be installer in muliples of 4. So a resonable minimum of DIMM slots would be 8 or 12
for the dual and 4 to 6 for the single.This could the SP-SP-DP configuration. That is if
A. It is expensive to have 8, 12 or even more DIMM slots
B The RAM really adds up.
I assume that the smallest DIMMs aviable is 128 but the price difference really make the 256 better so that will be RAm in multiples of 1 GB
With no L3 cache and some serious speed the 970 seem to need all the bus speed it can get 8)
The last time we had towers with 12 memory slots was the 9600! When the single 200 MHz came out it was 3700 dollar and the dual 200 MHz was 4700 dollar.
The general trend is that motherboards get smaller and smaller over time but that many DIMM slots will take up some space!
Comments
Originally posted by DrBoar
Attention, all that follows is not rumour, we leave the principle just that APPLE will adopt in an immediate future the PPC 970. Nowadays, nothing resembles one Mac more than a PC. If one puts side the processor and OS, all that is in the machine has a common origin. One thus can, by extrapolation to try to guess technologies which APPLE in its next machines will use. - For storage, APPLE will have the choice between the ATA 133 or Serial ATA This last standard appears too young person us, the too rare and expensive discs to be adopted only. - Currently the bus system of top-of-the-range G4 is to 167 MHz all manufacturers PC must leave for this summer of the products supporting a bus to 200Mhz. One can thus think that APPLE will make in the same way, especially if one considers the following point. - Whereas G4 has a bus report completely skimped and completely exceeded by the current flows report, the PPC 970 can exchange 6,4 Go of data per seconds. However GDR to 200 MHz (PC3200) has a flow of 3,2 Go/s. The solution would be without exit if one did not look at what was done in world PC With its NForce, NVidia introduced a named technology DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way. - If to gain in performances, one must use bars 2 by 2, it becomes unthinkable to have only 3 sites report. One can thus count on a return of 4 slots memory, for a maximum of 4 Go of RAM, which will not pose the least problem with the PPC 970. To finish, we remind certain people in the doubt that the PPC 970 has only a core contrary to Power4, but which it supports fully the symmetrical multiprocessing. On G4, it is a bug trailing since the origin which a long time prevented from simultaneously putting more than 2 processors. The 970 does not have a concern. One will be able to even dream in the future with a solution octo processor under X to make profitable l?achat of Silicon Grail or to make Final Cut Pro a true solution of assembly in real time.
Anyone translate this to English, please!
Originally posted by DrBoar
With dual DIMMs per CPU it would mean that memory had to be installer in muliples of 4. So a resonable minimum of DIMM slots would be 8 or 12
This could the SP-SP-DP configuration. That is if
A. It is expensive to have 8, 12 or even more DIMM slots
B The RAM really adds up.
I assume that the smallest DIMMs aviable is 128 but the price difference really make the 256 better so that will be RAm in multiples of 1 GB
The general trend is that motherboards get smaller and smaller over time but that many DIMM slots will take up some space!
The space used by all those slots may indeed be a problem, but there is another issue. The distance between the processor and the memory sticks can't be too great, especially at high speeds. In the past there have been PC motherboards that were planned with 4 slots, but only shipped with 3 because the slot farthest away from the CPU would not work reliably.
MacBidouille is on crack. The only Macs without an even number of memory slots available now are the iBook and 12" PB.
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that memory will have to be installed in fours. Dual-channel DDR is nice, but not mandatory. It's not like you won't be able to install odd numbers of DIMMs...
Originally posted by wfzelle
The space used by all those slots may indeed be a problem, but there is another issue. The distance between the processor and the memory sticks can't be too great, especially at high speeds. In the past there have been PC motherboards that were planned with 4 slots, but only shipped with 3 because the slot farthest away from the CPU would not work reliably.
I don't see more than four slots coming to the Power Mac line anyway. And if distance becomes a problem with four slots in a row, they can be separated into pairs...like this:
"DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way." Mangled or not it do suggest two DIMMs per CPU or muliples thereof, hence 4 or muliples of that for the duals.
costique
Go to www.engrish.com and read that for while, it will desensitize you
The babelfish translation might be terrible but if you are familiar with the subject you will understand, and I just wanted to share the info ASAP with my fellow mac nuts
Originally posted by DrBoar
Eugene
"DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way." Mangled or not it do suggest two DIMMs per CPU or muliples thereof, hence 4 or muliples of that for the duals.
It doesn't suggest anything other than the fact that you can communicate with your RAM (sometimes/most of the time) at 6.4 GB/s via two sticks of PC3200 DDR memory in a dual-channel config. MacBidouille doesn't assume memory will needed to be installed in quartets, at least not in my interpretation.
I don't think IBM or Apple plans to give each CPU its own dedicated 6.4 GB/s anyway. it's my assumption that two processors will share that bandwidth.
"DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way." Mangled or not it do suggest two DIMMs per CPU or muliples thereof, hence 4 or muliples of that for the duals.
costique
Go to www.engrish.com and read that for while, it will desensitize you
The babelfish translation might be terrible but if you are familiar with the subject you will understand, and I just wanted to share the info ASAP with my fellow mac nuts
With 1GB So-DIMMs on the way, will we be seeing larger DIMMs in the 1.5 to 2GB range any time soon? I would assume that RAM makers could put at least double the capacity onto a DIMM than a so-dimm, seeing as how they have quite a bit more room and tolerance, and can get away with making slightly taller modules if they have to.
I can think of some scientists and film people who would definitely drop in more than 4GB if they could.
Eugene, that arrangement looks very intriguing, any chance that Apple might split the banks and provide more than 2x2, mebbe 3x3 or 4x4 in a similar arrangement to what you posted?
Originally posted by Matsu
The question is, who will make the DIMMs to really give some big capacity for all that 64 bit adress space?
-snip-
Eugene, that arrangement looks very intriguing, any chance that Apple might split the banks and provide more than 2x2, mebbe 3x3 or 4x4 in a similar arrangement to what you posted?
I'm running 1.5 GB of RAM in my G4 right now, because PC133 has been so cheap for a long time. I'm only running 512 MB in my PC, but I haven't really felt the need for more. I think 4 GB will be plenty for the time being for 99%+ of all Power Mac customers...
The RAM problem really isn't that big a deal... If you go to Tom's Hardware and look at their CeBit coverage, you'll see a pic of a Gigabyte brand motherboard based on Intel's new Canterwood platform (i875). It has two pairs of three DIMM slots all lined up in a row.
Originally posted by Outsider
With faster and faster buses coming out, even DDR RAM is starting to look lethargic WRT the bus bandwidth too the CPU. They really should come out with a DDR DIMM that is 128 bits wide.
I was under the impression that graphics cards like the ATi Radeon 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro used a 256-bit wide memory interface coupled with 310 and 340 MHz DDR memory...which puts the bandwidth available at up to ~22 GB/s
Originally posted by costique
Anyone translate this to English, please!
Translation of Macbidouille text, not my own thoughts.
----------------
Note, the following is not a rumour, just based on the premise that Apple will use the PPC970 in the near future.
Nowadays, nothing is more like a Mac than a PC. Aside from the CPU and the OS, everything in the machine has a common source. Therefore, one can try and guess the technologies that Apple will use in their forthcoming machines by extrapolation.
For mass storage the choice is between ATA133 or Serial ATA. The latter standard seems to us too recent, the disks too scarce and expensive to be used as the sole interface.
The current top of the range G4 uses a 167MHz bus. All the PC suppliers are due to have equipment using a 200MHz bus out this summer. One might therefore think that Apple will do the same, especially if you take note of the following point.
Whilst the G4 has a bus which is completely outperformed by current memory devices, the PPC970 has 6.4GB/s bandwidth. However, PC3200 (200MHz DDR) gives 3.2GB/s. The solution is only apparent if one looks at the PC world. NVidia, with it's nForce introduced a technology called DualDDR or TwinBank which allows the simultaneous use of two memory modules to give a maximum bandwidth of 6.4GB/s. It is inconceivable that Apple would not do the same.
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. One can therefore count on their being 4 slots, to give a maximum of 4GB of RAM, which the PPC 970 would handle with no problems.
Lastly, we remind some doubters that whilst the unlike the POWER4, the PPC970 has only one core, it thoroughly supports SMP.
With the G4, there is a long-standing bug, that makes more than dual processors impossible. The 970 has no such problems. We can even dream of a future octal processor solution using X, to profit from the purchase of Silicon Grail or to make Final Cut Pro a true real-time editor.
--------------
Personally I believe most of this is poorly thought through gibberish.
[Edit made it obvious the translation is not my own opinion]
michael
Originally posted by DrBoar
Eugene
"DualDDR or TwinBank. It makes it possible simultaneously to use 2 bars of memory to reach a maximum capacity from... 6,4 Go/s. Bingo! It would be inconceivable that APPLE does not make in the same way." Mangled or not it do suggest two DIMMs per CPU or muliples thereof, hence 4 or muliples of that for the duals.
costique
Go to www.engrish.com and read that for while, it will desensitize you
The babelfish translation might be terrible but if you are familiar with the subject you will understand, and I just wanted to share the info ASAP with my fellow mac nuts
And if you go to www.engrish.com, try not to fall into the "Emergency Trap"
Originally posted by DrBoar
Eugene
costique
Go to www.engrish.com and read that for while, it will desensitize you
Wow, those are some great sample of completely destroying the engrish language. Some people need better translators, thanks for the great examples of how to absolutely look ridiculous when speaking someone else language.
Still waiting for a better translation of the article tho.
Originally translated by mmicist
Whilst the G4 has a bus which is completely outperformed by current memory devices, the PPC970 has 6.4GB/s bandwidth. However, PC3200 (200MHz DDR) gives 3.2GB/s. The solution is only apparent if one looks at the PC world.
First, thanks for the traduction, mmicist.
Second, the above quote from MacBidouille's article is fundamentally wrong. The PPC970 has 3.2GB/s actual bandwidth in each direction for a total of 6.4GB/s. Single channel PC3200 would theoretically be adequate to the task of supplying a single 970. Dual channel RAM would become necessary if a single bank of RAM had to supply two 970s with two busses attached to the same memory controller.
It might be advantageous in single-970 systems (including NUMA designs) if PC3200 RAM doesn't get too close to its theoretical throughput in practice. I don't know whether it does.
Originally posted by KidRed
Some people need better translators, thanks for the great examples of how to absolutely look ridiculous when speaking someone else language.
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.
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.
The misplaced adverb is also a split infinitive. Less egregious an error than the comma splice, but an error nonetheless.
Cheers
Scott