Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rogersmj

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 10, 2006
2,161
1
Indianapolis, IN
Was thinking about the new iMac, and noticed the above when looking at the specs. Now, it's been a long time since I got into the nitty-gritty of PC architecture, but wouldn't the slower memory be holding the system back? Does the 800 MHz bus spec of the SR platform imply it should actually take 800 MHz memory?
 

Vidd

macrumors 65816
Mar 7, 2006
1,001
108
They cranked it down for the cheaper memory no doubt. Sure its holding it back.

Santa Rosa has a 800Mhz frontside bus but the hardware that handles RAM runs at 667Mh and this is a limitation in the hardware; it is not Apple's fault.
EDIT: Whoops, Eidorian's reply wasn't there when I started to type!
 

chewietobbacca

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2007
428
0
This is going to be a very very crude explanation but: Intel rates their front side bus or FSB by quad pumped values.

On PC's, it goes like this:

A 2.4GHz E4500 core 2 duo allendale has an 800 MHz FSB quad pumped. It's 2.4GHz comes from the 12X multiplier so 12 x 200 mhz = 2.4GHz.

RAM can be set to linked (which is a 1:1 ratio) to FSB or unliked (and arbitrary multipliers). Ram, such as the DDR2 ram here, is the base FSB * 2. So if the processor is running at 200FSB (or 800FSB quad pumped, as advertised here), and RAM is linked in a direct 1:1 ratio (or 2.0 multiplier in other words), the RAM is running at 2 * 200 mhz = 400Mhz, or DDR2 400.

If multiplier is 3.33, then 3.33 * 200 = 667Mhz or DDR2 667.

For example, my brother's PC has a Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz running at 1333FSB (or 4 x 333). Thus 2.33GHz / 333 MHz = 7 x multiplier. When overclocked to 450 FSB, the computer is running at 7 x 450 = 3.15 GHz.

The RAM came stock at DDR2 800 but when set to linked 1:1, at the overclocked settings, the RAM is running at 2 x 450 = 900 MHz or in other words, it is overclocked over its originally rated speed.

I know this pertains more to PC's and their BIOSes than Macs but that's the gist of it. In a nutshell: Lower rated RAM doesn't mean lower speeds at all unless overclocking is involved, and that's not involved here at all.
 

rogersmj

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 10, 2006
2,161
1
Indianapolis, IN
We went through this when the MacBook Pro was updated. It's the memory controller.

My, aren't we full of flippant responses today. Sorry, I don't have time to keep up with EVERY SINGLE thread about every product line. I figured there was some explanation for it, but "It's the memory controller" isn't a very substantive response.

This is going to be a very very crude explanation but: Intel rates their front side bus or FSB by quad pumped values.

On PC's, it goes like this:

A 2.4GHz E4500 core 2 duo allendale has an 800 MHz FSB quad pumped. It's 2.4GHz comes from the 12X multiplier so 12 x 200 mhz = 2.4GHz.

RAM can be set to linked (which is a 1:1 ratio) to FSB or unliked (and arbitrary multipliers). Ram, such as the DDR2 ram here, is the base FSB * 2. So if the processor is running at 200FSB (or 800FSB quad pumped, as advertised here), and RAM is linked in a direct 1:1 ratio (or 2.0 multiplier in other words), the RAM is running at 2 * 200 mhz = 400Mhz, or DDR2 400.

If multiplier is 3.33, then 3.33 * 200 = 667Mhz or DDR2 667.

For example, my brother's PC has a Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz running at 1333FSB (or 4 x 333). Thus 2.33GHz / 333 MHz = 7 x multiplier. When overclocked to 450 FSB, the computer is running at 7 x 450 = 3.15 GHz.

The RAM came stock at DDR2 800 but when set to linked 1:1, at the overclocked settings, the RAM is running at 2 x 450 = 900 MHz or in other words, it is overclocked over its originally rated speed.

I know this pertains more to PC's and their BIOSes than Macs but that's the gist of it. In a nutshell: Lower rated RAM doesn't mean lower speeds at all unless overclocking is involved, and that's not involved here at all.

Thank you! I feel rumblings in the back of my brain from when I used to build PCs...I think that makes sense. Appreciate the help!
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
My, aren't we full of flippant responses today. Sorry, I don't have time to keep up with EVERY SINGLE thread about every product line. I figured there was some explanation for it, but "It's the memory controller" isn't a very substantive response.
There's no need to have high speed RAM unless you plan to overclock?

For best performance you're going to need DDR2-800 for single channel or DDR2-400 for dual channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_duo#DDR2_memory_modules

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/pm965/index.htm

It has been 3 months since the MacBook Pro update. My answer is correct.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.