Actually, if you go to the Intel website and look at the laptop chipsets and see what chipsets are on the market right now, they have 4GB addressable RAM. I believe they are the 945PM chipsets that are capable of taking Core 2 Duo processors and holding the 4GB RAM max. It makes sense and unfortunately, doesn't make Santa Rosa seem as big of an upgrade. Santa Rosa will just bring Kedron and Robson and hopefully the new MacBook Pro's will give us a taste of Kedron (802.11n).
Yeah, I checked the site. If apple puts the 945PM chipsets in the MBP, it will definetely give a lot of people what they want, which is more available memory, they might even put the 945GM set in the MB, which would give them the 4GB memory and have integrated graphics, but I dont know if MB users really want the extra Ram without the dedicated graphics card, but if Intel uses it, MB users at least have a solution. As for me, I just hope the MBP gets the 945PM
Well, guess what, current MacBooks / Macbooks Pro already have 945 GM and PM chipsets, respectively.
The 2 GB limitation, if you ask me, was put there just to be on the safe side and I honestly believe that at least MBP is capable of supporting 4 GB. Given the pricing of the 2 GB SODIMMs though, I doubt I'll be able to verify that anytime soon.
I believe that with the Napa motherboard, that the MBP can handle 3 GB too, I believe the max addressable ram is 3.2, though I've heard it varies from 2.8 to 3.2 GB. So the MBP could get up to 3GB too, but it needs either Crestline, which is unlikely, or a different one that can address more.
You're slightly confusing 2 things here.
The memory addressable by the hardware and the operating system is 4 GB (as in full 4096 MB) for the current Apple hardware and OS.
Individual applications (single processes), however, can address only around 3 GB without any hacks, the exact value depending on the operating system design. All major 32-bit operating systems have that limitation.
A 64-bit operating system coupled with a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit application would, however, allow this application to address the full 4 GB (or more).
The only thing I care about is Merom to be 64-bit ready for Leopard and room for MORE RAM!! Sure, who doesn't want 2 GB, but it would be nice to have 4 GB addressable (especially since it's a 64-bit processor) or even 3 GB like the iMac would be swweet. Other than that, I don't expect much more, I'm just waiting until the beginning of next month and hopefully the 17" will be updated by then...
32bit CPUs can address up to 4GB. 2GB SODIMMs are available but very expensive and it would appear the chipset won't allow 4GB anyway if the iMac is anything to go by.
32bit CPUs can address up to 4GB. 2GB SODIMMs are available but very expensive and it would appear the chipset won't allow 4GB anyway if the iMac is anything to go by.
Which Intel iMac does not support 4 GB? Care to post a link?
The memory addressable by the hardware and the operating system is 4 GB (as in full 4096 MB) for the current Apple hardware and OS.
Individual applications (single processes), however, can address only around 3 GB without any hacks, the exact value depending on the operating system design. All major 32-bit operating systems have that limitation.
A 64-bit operating system coupled with a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit application would, however, allow this application to address the full 4 GB (or more).
Other than memory (IMHO the most important reason), any math operation that requires more than 32-bit accuracy, you know double precision, become single precision, complex numbers, etcetera.
Can't remember the last time I wrote a single precision program (perhaps 20 years ago).
Anyway doubling the word size of math calculations, if needed, will result on an ~2X speed increase (depending on the CPU architecture (that's been my experience anyway in my own benchmarks)). IMHO, I consider this significant in and of itself.
Repeat after me. Dont be stupid. A keyboards a keyboard. Frankly I havent heard complaints about either so im pretty impartial to both. But the mac books looks more appealing to me so id prefer that.
No offense intended, but you have no style. It looks like something from the 80's. The MBP beveled keys are a lot more sexy, the letters won't ever wear off, and would you really want to give up backlighting?
Other than memory (IMHO the most important reason), any math operation that requires more than 32-bit accuracy, you know double precision, become single precision, complex numbers, etcetera.
Can't remember the last time I wrote a single precision program (perhaps 20 years ago).
Anyway doubling the word size of math calculations, if needed, will result on an ~2X speed increase (depending on the CPU architecture (that's been my experience anyway in my own benchmarks)). IMHO, I consider this significant in and of itself.
In the real world however, most programs use integers.
In the real world however, most programs use integers.
I don't have any hard numbers, so I wouldn't disagree with that statement. I wouldn't disagree that even most FP programs only need 32-bit operations. I was just sighting, perhaps, the only other reason 64-bit CPU's/OS's/applications are useful, since you asked?
I don't have any hard numbers, so I wouldn't disagree with that statement. I wouldn't disagree that even most FP programs only need 32-bit operations. I was just sighting, perhaps, the only other reason 64-bit CPU's/OS's/applications are useful, since you asked?
On x86-64 (or whatever you want to call Intel's implementation of AMD's 64 bit extensions to x86), there are several advantages to 64-bit not available to 32-bit programs. AMD/Intel took the 64-bit transition as an opportunity to clean up the architecture. 64-bit programs will have access to more registers, fewer instructions required to make system calls and faster integer operations (not just for 64-bit integer math, but for 32-bit integer math as well). These benefits are only available to 64-bit applications on x86-64. They don't apply to PPC/64-bit, which is traditionally slower than 32-bit programs that don't use 64-bit math extensively. On x86-64, some programs can see a 10% speed improvement just by recompiling (assuming the program is 64-bit clean). Those are the Apple benchmarks though; Intel will tell you it's more like a couple % on average and 10% at max. But just the same, there are more advantages than just 64-bit addressable memory.
And there are other benchmarks which will show you the opposite, that having to move twice as much data around is slower than 32bit.
So, bear in mind a laptop won't have more than 4GB of RAM, most programs are integer and don't need double precision floating point and Intel's implentation of EMT64 is only marginally quicker than 32bit, the advantages of 64bit are neither here nor there for laptop users.
The only area I reckon Merom is of use is in vector maths typically as we had with AltiVec. There it has much bigger advantages, and those advantages are available to 32bit also anyway.
I've been doing a lot of research anticipating the day when I will finally buy my laptop and enjoy it. However, I am realizing that this really is just going to be a "speed-bumped" release. The only good thing is that you are getting a 64-bit processor ready for when Leopard comes out.
Other than that, it doesn't look like anything else is improving. Because of limitations, people cannot get 4GB to work on their MacBook Pro's or even on their iMac's. I don't think that people are actually going to see a RAM increase and total revision of the MBP until Santa Rosa comes out, which probably wouldn't be until another six months in about April or May of 2007. I really hope this isn't the case, but I think I'm going to be pretty disappointed... maybe I should just get a Mac Pro.
EDITED: The reason this is upsetting me, is that I am pretty much going to buy a 17" MBP and I want the most out of my investment, not for it to be updated two-to-six months later when I will spend $3,000 on a laptop. Does everyone feel where I am coming from?
I've been doing a lot of research anticipating the day when I will finally buy my laptop and enjoy it. However, I am realizing that this really is just going to be a "speed-bumped" release. The only good thing is that you are getting a 64-bit processor ready for when Leopard comes out.
Other than that, it doesn't look like anything else is improving. Because of limitations, people cannot get 4GB to work on their MacBook Pro's or even on their iMac's. I don't think that people are actually going to see a RAM increase and total revision of the MBP until Santa Rosa comes out, which probably wouldn't be until another six months in about April or May of 2007. I really hope this isn't the case, but I think I'm going to be pretty disappointed... maybe I should just get a Mac Pro.
EDITED: The reason this is upsetting me, is that I am pretty much going to buy a 17" MBP and I want the most out of my investment, not for it to be updated two-to-six months later when I will spend $3,000 on a laptop. Does everyone feel where I am coming from?
I know where you are coming from. My feeling is, why not wait a couple of weeks and see what finally materalises. Of course I've been saying this now for close to 2 months, but who's counting?
I really think Apple will increase specs and drop prices a little. If they don't I might just get a MBP refub with core duo as Merom isn't a huge increase in performance.
A sidenote: this is not the link I meant, vendors rarely know what they're selling. I was hoping for a hands-on report.
Quote:
17-inch model with 1.83GHz processor
512MB (2x256MB) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory
Two SODIMM slots support up to 2GB
17-inch model with 2.0GHz processor, 20-inch and 24-inch models
1GB (2x512MB) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory
Two SODIMM slots support up to 3GB
Note that the 1.83 GHz model has the integrated GPU variant of i945 chipset series, 945GM, while other models have 945PM with discrete graphics.
Now historically, Intel has differentiated the GM and PM series of mobile chipsets by e.g. the amount of RAM they're able to address. That was the case with i845 (845GM addressed 1 GB, 845PM twice as much), that's probably the case with i945 as well.
Thus, the low-end iMac (as well as MacBook, as it's also built on 945GM) only supports 2 GB.
Higher-end iMacs and MBPs (both with 945PM) should support 4 GB.
3 GB from the Apple spec doesn't make any sense, unless Apple intentionally crippled the hardware (which is rare as it's non-trivial) or there is a chipset erratum regarding, say, the usage of 2 GB SODIMMs in a dual-channel configuration.
I'll reiterate: 945PM chipset supports 4 GB, therefore anything built on that, including MBPs and iMacs with discrete graphics should support 4 GB. We won't be sure until someone tries and posts a report, though.
Well, the Intel datasheet (30921902.pdf) is clear: both 945GM and PM support up to 4 GB, while 945GMS and GMT only 2 GB (though the latter are not used in Macs to my best knowledge).
Fun fact: all mobile Core 2 Duo (Merom) machines are based on i945's, which basically means no support for more than 4 GB of memory for iMacs and MBPs, at least until Santa Rosa ships next year. Not that there are any 4 GB SODIMMs to begin with.
Had I actually bothered to wait for Merom and the so-called 64-bit advantage instead of having bought my MBP in June, I'd feel really awkward now.
Comments
Actually, if you go to the Intel website and look at the laptop chipsets and see what chipsets are on the market right now, they have 4GB addressable RAM. I believe they are the 945PM chipsets that are capable of taking Core 2 Duo processors and holding the 4GB RAM max. It makes sense and unfortunately, doesn't make Santa Rosa seem as big of an upgrade. Santa Rosa will just bring Kedron and Robson and hopefully the new MacBook Pro's will give us a taste of Kedron (802.11n).
Yeah, I checked the site. If apple puts the 945PM chipsets in the MBP, it will definetely give a lot of people what they want, which is more available memory, they might even put the 945GM set in the MB, which would give them the 4GB memory and have integrated graphics, but I dont know if MB users really want the extra Ram without the dedicated graphics card, but if Intel uses it, MB users at least have a solution. As for me, I just hope the MBP gets the 945PM
The 2 GB limitation, if you ask me, was put there just to be on the safe side and I honestly believe that at least MBP is capable of supporting 4 GB. Given the pricing of the 2 GB SODIMMs though, I doubt I'll be able to verify that anytime soon.
I believe that with the Napa motherboard, that the MBP can handle 3 GB too, I believe the max addressable ram is 3.2, though I've heard it varies from 2.8 to 3.2 GB. So the MBP could get up to 3GB too, but it needs either Crestline, which is unlikely, or a different one that can address more.
You're slightly confusing 2 things here.
The memory addressable by the hardware and the operating system is 4 GB (as in full 4096 MB) for the current Apple hardware and OS.
Individual applications (single processes), however, can address only around 3 GB without any hacks, the exact value depending on the operating system design. All major 32-bit operating systems have that limitation.
A 64-bit operating system coupled with a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit application would, however, allow this application to address the full 4 GB (or more).
The only thing I care about is Merom to be 64-bit ready for Leopard and room for MORE RAM!! Sure, who doesn't want 2 GB, but it would be nice to have 4 GB addressable (especially since it's a 64-bit processor) or even 3 GB like the iMac would be swweet. Other than that, I don't expect much more, I'm just waiting until the beginning of next month and hopefully the 17" will be updated by then...
32bit CPUs can address up to 4GB. 2GB SODIMMs are available but very expensive and it would appear the chipset won't allow 4GB anyway if the iMac is anything to go by.
That's presuming that somebody ships 4GB SODIMMs before '09 and the MacBook Pro takes them.
sounds like your saying the only reason for 64bit is more memory... thats only a reason... 64 bit brings more to the table than more max memory.
32bit CPUs can address up to 4GB. 2GB SODIMMs are available but very expensive and it would appear the chipset won't allow 4GB anyway if the iMac is anything to go by.
Which Intel iMac does not support 4 GB? Care to post a link?
sounds like your saying the only reason for 64bit is more memory... thats only a reason... 64 bit brings more to the table than more max memory.
Such as?
Which Intel iMac does not support 4 GB? Care to post a link?
None of them do. 3GB Max.
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
You're slightly confusing 2 things here.
The memory addressable by the hardware and the operating system is 4 GB (as in full 4096 MB) for the current Apple hardware and OS.
Individual applications (single processes), however, can address only around 3 GB without any hacks, the exact value depending on the operating system design. All major 32-bit operating systems have that limitation.
A 64-bit operating system coupled with a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit application would, however, allow this application to address the full 4 GB (or more).
thanks, my bad
Such as?
Other than memory (IMHO the most important reason), any math operation that requires more than 32-bit accuracy, you know double precision, become single precision, complex numbers, etcetera.
Can't remember the last time I wrote a single precision program (perhaps 20 years ago).
Anyway doubling the word size of math calculations, if needed, will result on an ~2X speed increase (depending on the CPU architecture (that's been my experience anyway in my own benchmarks)). IMHO, I consider this significant in and of itself.
Repeat after me. Dont be stupid. A keyboards a keyboard. Frankly I havent heard complaints about either so im pretty impartial to both. But the mac books looks more appealing to me so id prefer that.
No offense intended, but you have no style. It looks like something from the 80's. The MBP beveled keys are a lot more sexy, the letters won't ever wear off, and would you really want to give up backlighting?
Other than memory (IMHO the most important reason), any math operation that requires more than 32-bit accuracy, you know double precision, become single precision, complex numbers, etcetera.
Can't remember the last time I wrote a single precision program (perhaps 20 years ago).
Anyway doubling the word size of math calculations, if needed, will result on an ~2X speed increase (depending on the CPU architecture (that's been my experience anyway in my own benchmarks)). IMHO, I consider this significant in and of itself.
In the real world however, most programs use integers.
In the real world however, most programs use integers.
I don't have any hard numbers, so I wouldn't disagree with that statement. I wouldn't disagree that even most FP programs only need 32-bit operations. I was just sighting, perhaps, the only other reason 64-bit CPU's/OS's/applications are useful, since you asked?
I don't have any hard numbers, so I wouldn't disagree with that statement. I wouldn't disagree that even most FP programs only need 32-bit operations. I was just sighting, perhaps, the only other reason 64-bit CPU's/OS's/applications are useful, since you asked?
On x86-64 (or whatever you want to call Intel's implementation of AMD's 64 bit extensions to x86), there are several advantages to 64-bit not available to 32-bit programs. AMD/Intel took the 64-bit transition as an opportunity to clean up the architecture. 64-bit programs will have access to more registers, fewer instructions required to make system calls and faster integer operations (not just for 64-bit integer math, but for 32-bit integer math as well). These benefits are only available to 64-bit applications on x86-64. They don't apply to PPC/64-bit, which is traditionally slower than 32-bit programs that don't use 64-bit math extensively. On x86-64, some programs can see a 10% speed improvement just by recompiling (assuming the program is 64-bit clean). Those are the Apple benchmarks though; Intel will tell you it's more like a couple % on average and 10% at max. But just the same, there are more advantages than just 64-bit addressable memory.
So, bear in mind a laptop won't have more than 4GB of RAM, most programs are integer and don't need double precision floating point and Intel's implentation of EMT64 is only marginally quicker than 32bit, the advantages of 64bit are neither here nor there for laptop users.
The only area I reckon Merom is of use is in vector maths typically as we had with AltiVec. There it has much bigger advantages, and those advantages are available to 32bit also anyway.
Other than that, it doesn't look like anything else is improving. Because of limitations, people cannot get 4GB to work on their MacBook Pro's or even on their iMac's. I don't think that people are actually going to see a RAM increase and total revision of the MBP until Santa Rosa comes out, which probably wouldn't be until another six months in about April or May of 2007. I really hope this isn't the case, but I think I'm going to be pretty disappointed... maybe I should just get a Mac Pro.
EDITED: The reason this is upsetting me, is that I am pretty much going to buy a 17" MBP and I want the most out of my investment, not for it to be updated two-to-six months later when I will spend $3,000 on a laptop. Does everyone feel where I am coming from?
I've been doing a lot of research anticipating the day when I will finally buy my laptop and enjoy it. However, I am realizing that this really is just going to be a "speed-bumped" release. The only good thing is that you are getting a 64-bit processor ready for when Leopard comes out.
Other than that, it doesn't look like anything else is improving. Because of limitations, people cannot get 4GB to work on their MacBook Pro's or even on their iMac's. I don't think that people are actually going to see a RAM increase and total revision of the MBP until Santa Rosa comes out, which probably wouldn't be until another six months in about April or May of 2007. I really hope this isn't the case, but I think I'm going to be pretty disappointed... maybe I should just get a Mac Pro.
EDITED: The reason this is upsetting me, is that I am pretty much going to buy a 17" MBP and I want the most out of my investment, not for it to be updated two-to-six months later when I will spend $3,000 on a laptop. Does everyone feel where I am coming from?
I know where you are coming from. My feeling is, why not wait a couple of weeks and see what finally materalises. Of course I've been saying this now for close to 2 months, but who's counting?
I really think Apple will increase specs and drop prices a little. If they don't I might just get a MBP refub with core duo as Merom isn't a huge increase in performance.
None of them do. 3GB Max.
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
A sidenote: this is not the link I meant, vendors rarely know what they're selling. I was hoping for a hands-on report.
17-inch model with 1.83GHz processor
512MB (2x256MB) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory
Two SODIMM slots support up to 2GB
17-inch model with 2.0GHz processor, 20-inch and 24-inch models
1GB (2x512MB) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory
Two SODIMM slots support up to 3GB
Note that the 1.83 GHz model has the integrated GPU variant of i945 chipset series, 945GM, while other models have 945PM with discrete graphics.
Now historically, Intel has differentiated the GM and PM series of mobile chipsets by e.g. the amount of RAM they're able to address. That was the case with i845 (845GM addressed 1 GB, 845PM twice as much), that's probably the case with i945 as well.
Thus, the low-end iMac (as well as MacBook, as it's also built on 945GM) only supports 2 GB.
Higher-end iMacs and MBPs (both with 945PM) should support 4 GB.
3 GB from the Apple spec doesn't make any sense, unless Apple intentionally crippled the hardware (which is rare as it's non-trivial) or there is a chipset erratum regarding, say, the usage of 2 GB SODIMMs in a dual-channel configuration.
I'll reiterate: 945PM chipset supports 4 GB, therefore anything built on that, including MBPs and iMacs with discrete graphics should support 4 GB. We won't be sure until someone tries and posts a report, though.
Fun fact: all mobile Core 2 Duo (Merom) machines are based on i945's, which basically means no support for more than 4 GB of memory for iMacs and MBPs, at least until Santa Rosa ships next year. Not that there are any 4 GB SODIMMs to begin with.
Had I actually bothered to wait for Merom and the so-called 64-bit advantage instead of having bought my MBP in June, I'd feel really awkward now.
It seems that Intel may already be falling down on it's commitment to Apple. I hope they have AMD waiting in the wings.
Care to eloborate.
Care to eloborate.
i don't think he needs to, the idiocy of the comment speaks for itself....