Putting a L3 cache in the 12" PowerBook

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
So, how likely is it that the 12" PowerBook can get a L3 cache into it for the the next rev? What are the reasons that it doesn't have it now? If Cost issue is the the case it seems like a pretty lame one considering how beneficial the L3 cache is to OS X. Any comments are appreciated, as I know that some people are holding out until this thing gets some L3 cache, myself and my girlfriend included. Apologies if this has been discussed in another thread; the search didn't want to bring up a results page using Safari or Chimera.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    [quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:

    <strong>So, how likely is it that the 12" PowerBook can get a L3 cache into it for the the next rev? What are the reasons that it doesn't have it now? If Cost issue is the the case it seems like a pretty lame one considering how beneficial the L3 cache is to OS X. Any comments are appreciated, as I know that some people are holding out until this thing gets some L3 cache, myself and my girlfriend included. Apologies if this has been discussed in another thread; the search didn't want to bring up a results page using Safari or Chimera.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    i am holding off until it can hold more than 640 MB of ram. one of the things that can cure what ails ya is more ram, and mac os x is only going to want more and more as time goes on, ESPECIALLY if you plan to use it for semi-professional purposes. consumer use may never need much more than that, though.



    [ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 47
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    I cannot understand why apple crippled the 12" Al with ram limitations when even the new iMacs can hold upto 1GB and the iMac is a consumer machine



    doesn't make senes



    [ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Cosmo ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 47
    jante99jante99 Posts: 539member
    [quote]Originally posted by Cosmo:

    <strong>I cannot understand why apple crippled the 12" Al with ram limitations when even the new iMacs can hold upto 1GB and the iMac is a consumer machine



    doesn't make senes



    [ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Cosmo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How do you think Apple got the price down to 1799? The cheapest Powerbook of all time had to have some compremises.



    I am guessing the 12" will never get L3 cache. The cache is one of the few things that distinguishes the 12" from the 15" (besides the screen) When the G4 gets real DDR support L3 cache will matter less anyway.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    the l3 cache is really expensive, like $100 per MB
  • Reply 5 of 47
    I would happily pay the price for a top version of the 12" PowerBook. I travel a lot, and I 'd prefer to haul a small PB to my meetings, rather than a 15" or 17" inch one. But then I need all the power I can get in a small package. Cost is not an issue here.
  • Reply 6 of 47
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    The 12" PowerBook seems more like an iBook with a G4 in it than a PowerBook that has been reduced in size. That's just the impression I get, seeing the lack of L3 cache, relatively low RAM limit, and lack of a PC card slot. Hopefully it'll pick up some of these things in the future.



    Geez... a PowerMac 7500 can hold more RAM than a 12" PowerBook... not that it really matters but there you see the difference between laptops and desktops.
  • Reply 7 of 47
    Concerning the RAM limitation, I look at it in the way that to pack so much into such a small package, some things need to give way. There just isn't room to get two slots. Perhaps upping the onboard memory to 256MB may be possible, at an expense.



    As for speed improvements related to the magnitude of RAM, I never saw a big improvement after upping the memory in my Dual 1Ghz MDD from 256MB to 768MB. When I've got a lot of apps running around, I know that it's appreciated when trying to feed each what it needs as far as memory goes, but as far as speed improvement, I've noticed nothing. Yes, OS X loves lots of RAM, but ther must be some sort of threshold that had already been reached with 256MB, or the performance gain just isn't that big.



    That said, I know plenty of people require a gig or more of RAM to run the hungriest of apps. In that case, the 12" just aint for you. But if someone is looking for a significant performance boost and is not running a ton of power apps, I have high doubts that a gig of ram will provide much performance gain over 640MB. So, I tend to disagree that the RAM limitation is a moster of a loss. As it stands today you can't pack everything into such a small package given engineering and cost issues, I'm not going to be ignorant to that, and so I'm understanding of the compromise considering the size limitation.



    Somehow the thread turned into a discussion concerning the memory limitation. But going back to the L3 cache, I can imagine that the addition of a meg of L3 cache would provide a signifant performance boost greater than any gain that would be had with an extra 340 megs of RAM. And I can imagine that this is completely within engineering possibilities and even cost issues. An extra hundred for some L3 cache might just be money well spent. I can see the 12" being crippled without L3 cache, but not crippled due to a 640MB limitation on RAM.



    I'm sure that someone will have some comments/flames about the memory issue, but I'd like to discuss the L3 cache issue for the moment.



    [ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 47
    SRAM (cache) costs virtually nothing, a 1MB SRAM chip might cost $6



    The eMac and iMac don't have L3 cache, but they do have solder pads for it Apple just left it out to further retard the consumer products.



    Unfortunetly without L3 cache the 745x class G4's might as well be Celerons
  • Reply 9 of 47
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Slow SRAM cache, for MP3 players and the like, cost pennies.



    4MB of 354MHz, Double-pumped, 128b wide L3 is expensive.



    Barto
  • Reply 10 of 47
    My take on L3 cache (and the paltry 128MB soldered ram) is that Apple doesn't want to make the 15" look outdated. I would be willing to bet that when the 15" gets updated to Al, you'll see the L3 cache and hopefully 256 soldered ram.



    As I type on my iBook 466, it's only supposed to have 320MB ram. It's got 576MB, since you can drop in a larger chip. Assuming someone in the future makes a gig chip in the proper form factor, it will probably work in the 12".
  • Reply 11 of 47
    Along with cost and performance, heat is also an

    issue if L3 is added to 12" PB. Adding an L3 would hustle the CPU beyond current thermal design. An enhanced L2 (512K) version would be possible in future, but I don't think L3 will be put in the 12" enclosure.
  • Reply 12 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>The 12" PowerBook seems more like an iBook with a G4 in it than a PowerBook that has been reduced in size. That's just the impression I get, seeing the lack of L3 cache, relatively low RAM limit, and lack of a PC card slot. Hopefully it'll pick up some of these things in the future.



    Geez... a PowerMac 7500 can hold more RAM than a 12" PowerBook... not that it really matters but there you see the difference between laptops and desktops.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's a good point really. I wonder if the G4 edition iBooks will really be a 12" AlBook motherboard in a iBook like case?
  • Reply 13 of 47
    warpdwarpd Posts: 204member
    Actually the type of RAM used in cache is not SDRAM it is high grade SRAM which is about $100 per mb.



    It is for this reason that SRAM has never been used on system boards as main memory.



    I would still rather the book was $1999 and has the L3 and a full gig of RAM though.





    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 14 of 47
    I expect we'll see a PB12 with a 7457 before we see it get an L3 cache. The 7457 will run cooler and comes with a double sized L2 cache which will somewhat make up for the lack of L3.
  • Reply 15 of 47
    Why would anybody buy the 15" PB if the 12

    has = specs? :confused: Anyway, the 12 isn't intended for processor intensive stuff-it is, in essence, a consumer computer.



    [ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: os10geek ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 47
    [quote]Why would anybody buy the 15" PB if the 12 has = specs<hr></blockquote>Because the 15" PBook has a 15" screen and the 12" PBook doesn't. How much more duh can you get.



    The 12" is meant for people who value portability. Given that fact Apple shouldn't intentionally cripple a product meant for this subset of users, i.e. no L3 cache or DVI video out. The processor is slower, the screen is smaller, and it comes with less stuff (FW800) and less goodies (Airport card and Bluetooth extra cost). Isn't that enough product differentiation?
  • Reply 17 of 47
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    [quote]Originally posted by Cosmo:

    <strong>I cannot understand why apple crippled the 12" Al with ram limitations when even the new iMacs can hold upto 1GB and the iMac is a consumer machine



    doesn't make senes



    [ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Cosmo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    it does make sence: it's a ibook with a little smaller alluminium case, a G4 and slot loading opticaldrive onboard. can't have it all... yet. the 15" have to sell for another 3-4 months so you have to differentiate your productline a little. next rev everything will be allright.
  • Reply 18 of 47
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    haha, i'm sorry guys but i love how you complain about the 12" not having stuff that YOU want because you can't afford the 15" or u don't want to wait to buy the 15" when its revised. apple put what it wanted into it, ur complaining isn't changing it.





    i want a 1.2GHz G3 with 1.5GB RAM in an 12" pbook but i dont see that happening



    ...and i want it cheaper then it is now too
  • Reply 19 of 47
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    You want a G3 in a PowerBook?
  • Reply 20 of 47
    Apple assumes that not many Photoshoppers and Finalcut editors will be drawn to a 768 X 1024 screen, so therefore Apple assumes that an L3 cache won't help the kind of user that buys that laptop. They assume that most 12" Powerbook buyers are iBook buyers looking for some extra bragging rights and Airport Extreme readiness.
Sign In or Register to comment.