With the 970 having a super fast fsb, seems like the memory will be the hindering factor of optimal performance (much better than processor being the factor). Any takes on what memory Apple will use? DDRII? How about GDDR2 or GDDR3?
I also think Apple will go with dual channel DDR400. It's too soon for DDRII. It isn't expected to go into mass production until 2004 and single channel DDRII initially will not provide as much bandwidth as dual channel DDR400.
Apple could go with something exotic like Quad Band memory which VIA is backing, but I'm betting they'll play in safe and stick with regular old DDR.
If the DDR400 is 800mhz, doing my math, that leaves 100mhz short of 900mhz of the 970? Would it possible to just add faster RAM as it becomes available? But does that mean anything faster than 900mhz will not benefit?
In the case of the Pentium 4's FSB, the actual operating frequency of the bus is 100/133MHz (for the 400 and 533MHz FSBs respectively). Addresses are sent twice per clock, which makes the FSB transfer addresses as fast as a 200/266MHz FSB would; and finally we have the quad-pumped data transfer rates, which means that data can be sent 4x per clock, effectively making the FSB transfer data as fast as a 400/533MHz FSB would. Since data, not address, transmission is what eats up the majority of FSB bandwidth, Intel gets away with calling the Pentium 4's FSB a 400/533MHz FSB. With the forthcoming 800MHz FSB, addresses will be transferred at 400MHz and data will be sent at 800MHz. What's interesting to note is that addresses will be transferred on the new FSB as fast as data was sent on the first Pentium 4 FSB introduced back in 2001.
Is this a similar situation what Apple will be doing with the 970's? We're not behind intel than?
If the DDR400 is 800mhz, doing my math, that leaves 100mhz short of 900mhz of the 970? Would it possible to just add faster RAM as it becomes available? But does that mean anything faster than 900mhz will not benefit?
No, only 800MHz of those 900MHz are actually used, since the "missing" 100MHz is used to transfer addresses. This is different from the G4, and P4, which don't have to multiplex the address-signals onto the regular signal. The memory however, works in the usual way, and pays no extra penalty to transfer addresses, thus 800Mhz is still 800Mhz
I also think Apple will go with dual channel DDR400. It's too soon for DDRII. It isn't expected to go into mass production until 2004 and single channel DDRII initially will not provide as much bandwidth as dual channel DDR400.
Is DDR400 even a JEDEC standard? If not, I don't really see Apple going with it.
if DDR II isn't ready, maybe we'll get dual-channel DDR333 instead. Apple tends to prefer commodity components that are widely available and standard upon release.
Is DDR400 even a JEDEC standard? If not, I don't really see Apple going with it.
if DDR II isn't ready, maybe we'll get dual-channel DDR333 instead. Apple tends to prefer commodity components that are widely available and standard upon release.
I believe DDR400 will be a JEDEC standard, it just hasn't been finalized yet. I read an article on Toms Hardware today about dual channel DDR400 being used in Intel's new Springdale chipset, which will support 800MHz FSB Pentiums. That will definitely help it gain market acceptance. The article also said memory manufactures won't be pushing DDRII until 2005, because they're beating DDR400 will take off in 2004, and I see no reason why it shouldn't.
Airport Xtreeem isn't an approved standard yet either and that hasn't stopped Apple from using it. I lean towards expecting Apple to use ddr333 though. ddr400 is still pricey and I'll be surprised if Apple uses it.
The difference there is that updating Airport Extreme base stations can be as simple as a firmware upgrade. If the standard for RAM changes, you're SOL.
I expect Apple to use DDR333 memory in the 970 Macs due to cost. DDR2 will be rev 2 or xServe970.
Both links from The Register.
Looks like we're at the start of another "build it, and they will come" period in computer history,since the same story mentions Micron's 4GB DDR memory ...
Application boot times got you down? Why not run all of your apps at once, on your new 8GB memory, 64Bit clean Mac?
(this is a dream of course)
Hell, if you never have to shut down, but just let these puppies sleep, with that kind of RAM and modern memory management, you might just let the system handle quitting applications for you, ie
System Message to OverToasty:
"Attention Mr. Toasty, the Browser 'Internet Explorer' hasn't been used in over a month ... would you like to quit the application?"
I don't think Apple will use DDR333 because it won't be able to saturate the PPC970s bus. DDR400 shouldn't be much more expensive and besides, the PowerMac is a highend machine, so Apple can afford to use highend RAM.
I disagree. Go into a place like Fry's and every peripheral you see is USB 2.0. CD Burners, Hard drives, scanners, whatever. You can't find FireWire anywhere. They just don't carry it. It really pisses me off. I know Firewire is better and all, but the PC world is pouncing on USB 2.0 and Mac users are being left out.
I don't think Apple will use DDR333 because it won't be able to saturate the PPC970s bus. DDR400 shouldn't be much more expensive and besides, the PowerMac is a highend machine, so Apple can afford to use highend RAM.
There is no requirement that the bus be saturated. Up until recently it was normal for the bus to not be the limiting factor.
Comments
Apple could go with something exotic like Quad Band memory which VIA is backing, but I'm betting they'll play in safe and stick with regular old DDR.
In the case of the Pentium 4's FSB, the actual operating frequency of the bus is 100/133MHz (for the 400 and 533MHz FSBs respectively). Addresses are sent twice per clock, which makes the FSB transfer addresses as fast as a 200/266MHz FSB would; and finally we have the quad-pumped data transfer rates, which means that data can be sent 4x per clock, effectively making the FSB transfer data as fast as a 400/533MHz FSB would. Since data, not address, transmission is what eats up the majority of FSB bandwidth, Intel gets away with calling the Pentium 4's FSB a 400/533MHz FSB. With the forthcoming 800MHz FSB, addresses will be transferred at 400MHz and data will be sent at 800MHz. What's interesting to note is that addresses will be transferred on the new FSB as fast as data was sent on the first Pentium 4 FSB introduced back in 2001.
Is this a similar situation what Apple will be doing with the 970's? We're not behind intel than?
Originally posted by jxfreak
If the DDR400 is 800mhz, doing my math, that leaves 100mhz short of 900mhz of the 970? Would it possible to just add faster RAM as it becomes available? But does that mean anything faster than 900mhz will not benefit?
No, only 800MHz of those 900MHz are actually used, since the "missing" 100MHz is used to transfer addresses. This is different from the G4, and P4, which don't have to multiplex the address-signals onto the regular signal. The memory however, works in the usual way, and pays no extra penalty to transfer addresses, thus 800Mhz is still 800Mhz
Barto
Originally posted by Kecksy
I also think Apple will go with dual channel DDR400. It's too soon for DDRII. It isn't expected to go into mass production until 2004 and single channel DDRII initially will not provide as much bandwidth as dual channel DDR400.
Is DDR400 even a JEDEC standard? If not, I don't really see Apple going with it.
if DDR II isn't ready, maybe we'll get dual-channel DDR333 instead. Apple tends to prefer commodity components that are widely available and standard upon release.
Originally posted by Amorph
Is DDR400 even a JEDEC standard? If not, I don't really see Apple going with it.
if DDR II isn't ready, maybe we'll get dual-channel DDR333 instead. Apple tends to prefer commodity components that are widely available and standard upon release.
I believe DDR400 will be a JEDEC standard, it just hasn't been finalized yet. I read an article on Toms Hardware today about dual channel DDR400 being used in Intel's new Springdale chipset, which will support 800MHz FSB Pentiums. That will definitely help it gain market acceptance. The article also said memory manufactures won't be pushing DDRII until 2005, because they're beating DDR400 will take off in 2004, and I see no reason why it shouldn't.
Here's a link to a Micron announcement of a 512 Mb DDR 400 JEDEC part coming in middle 2003 so I expect JEDEC to certify DDR 400 by then http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/29923.html
I expect Apple to use DDR333 memory in the 970 Macs due to cost. DDR2 will be rev 2 or xServe970.
Both links from The Register.
Originally posted by CodeWarrior
Samsung just annouced mass production of 1GB DDR2 DIMMS http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/29885.html
Here's a link to a Micron announcement of a 512 Mb DDR 400 JEDEC part coming in middle 2003 so I expect JEDEC to certify DDR 400 by then http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/29923.html
I expect Apple to use DDR333 memory in the 970 Macs due to cost. DDR2 will be rev 2 or xServe970.
Both links from The Register.
Looks like we're at the start of another "build it, and they will come" period in computer history,since the same story mentions Micron's 4GB DDR memory ...
Application boot times got you down? Why not run all of your apps at once, on your new 8GB memory, 64Bit clean Mac?
(this is a dream of course)
Hell, if you never have to shut down, but just let these puppies sleep, with that kind of RAM and modern memory management, you might just let the system handle quitting applications for you, ie
System Message to OverToasty:
"Attention Mr. Toasty, the Browser 'Internet Explorer' hasn't been used in over a month ... would you like to quit the application?"
Launch EVERYTHING! Whaddaya say?
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple tends to prefer commodity components that are widely available and standard upon release.
Sometimes even standards that have been bypassed a decent length of time ago, like non-DDR RAM, USB 1.1, etc etc.
Originally posted by SSquirrel
Sometimes even standards that have been bypassed a decent length of time ago, like non-DDR RAM, USB 1.1, etc etc.
Fail to see your point
Macs have DDR
Macs have USB and Firewire.
USB2 isn't really a necessity currently IMO.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Fail to see your point
Macs have DDR
Macs have USB and Firewire.
USB2 isn't really a necessity currently IMO.
I disagree. Go into a place like Fry's and every peripheral you see is USB 2.0. CD Burners, Hard drives, scanners, whatever. You can't find FireWire anywhere. They just don't carry it. It really pisses me off. I know Firewire is better and all, but the PC world is pouncing on USB 2.0 and Mac users are being left out.
but the PC world is pouncing on USB 2.0 and Mac users are being left out
Yes the PC world is well known for pouncing on second rate technology. They eat whatever Intel puts on the table.
It wuld be a big "Stunt" and draw a lot of atention to Apple
I use a powerbook as a desktop and its truly amazing
GO Apple! You can do it!
MAX
Originally posted by Kecksy
I don't think Apple will use DDR333 because it won't be able to saturate the PPC970s bus. DDR400 shouldn't be much more expensive and besides, the PowerMac is a highend machine, so Apple can afford to use highend RAM.
There is no requirement that the bus be saturated. Up until recently it was normal for the bus to not be the limiting factor.