What will this mean for future powermac-releases?

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by freedom, Mar 27, 2002.

  1. freedom macrumors member

    Aug 14, 2001
    Royal Midsommarkransen, Stockholm, Sweden
    Just read that 3 manufacturers of DDRs won´t start
    manufacturing DDR sdram-memories with 400 mhz.
    They will wait for ddr-II instead…
    …It seems that the present technology makes it too
    complicated to produce and these companies fear
    that some motherboard-manufacturers won´t
    support this platform, and wait…
    It seems that two producers will still build 4 this platform.
    This tidbit came out from a JEDEC-conference the other day.

    >What will this mean for future powermac-releases?

    I´m an apprentice in this field and my source is an article
    from IDG´s swedish homepage - idg.se (in swedish :()
  2. germanknee macrumors member

    Jan 24, 2002
  3. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Mar 2, 2002
    I heard somewhere (unsure of reference) that the G5 was supposed to have this 400MHz RAM speed and, possibly, DDR-RAM. This means that we will have to wait a rather long time for the G5.

    Well, at least Apple can still create high-speed dual G4 Powermacs.

    It does not take a genius to figure it out . . . just someone who uses a Mac.
  4. germanknee macrumors member

    Jan 24, 2002
  5. Hemingray macrumors 68030


    Jan 9, 2002
    Ha ha haaa!
    DDR-II in 2004... which means Apple will have it in 2006... :rolleyes:
  6. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus


    Jan 2, 2001
    Metairie, LA
    not unless Apple has something up their sleeves...

    aren't we expecting something to happen with the towers...

    hmm....maybe I'll get bad feedback from that...:rolleyes:
  7. sparkleytone macrumors 68020


    Oct 28, 2001
    Greensboro, NC
    sorry to say but DDR ram, though cheaper, is not a very good high performance solution. RDRAM is now beginning to show its true potential when combined with a processor and chipset that can take advantage. the latest pentiums are hindered by DDR when compared to RDRAM, and I would expect the same from any g4/g5. I think Apple could negotiate a very good deal with Rambus and license some of their upcoming technologies. DDR just isnt gonna cut it.
  8. TyleRomeo macrumors 6502a

    Mar 22, 2002
    New York
    hmmmmmmmm interesting.....so the July G4 mite even be RD-ram. that would be nice. personally anything but SDRAM would make me happy, so bring on DDR or RD and for godsakes expand RAM capacity.
  9. germanknee macrumors member

    Jan 24, 2002

    the ddr we are talking about is sdram; its sdram II, also known as ddr sdram.
  10. wrylachlan macrumors regular

    Jan 25, 2002
    g4/pentium = different memory requirements

    Yes Rambus outperforms DDR on high end pentium 4 systems, but that has to do with the way the pentium is very dependant on the memory bus for performance. I'm not sure that a 1 GHz or even 1.6 Ghz (theoretical) G4 would see any performance difference between RDRAM and DDR SDRAM. The G4 uses more internal parallelism which makes it less dependant on the memory bus. Its the reason apple can get away with taking so god-awful long to upgrade from regular SDRAM. (I know, I know we're screaming for something new.)
  11. AlphaTech macrumors 601


    Oct 4, 2001
    Natick, MA

    sparkleytone, where have you seen DDR memory cheaper, and compared to what???? You can get a 512MB PC133 (quality) chip for $115, but a 512MB PC2100 chip (quality as well) runs $160. Both of those are for desktop/tower systems, NOT laptops.

    Current DDR speeds are for either 200, 266, or 333MHz buses. The memory is rated as PC1600, PC2100, and PC2700 respectively. They are also, typically, 184 pin memory, which means that they will not fit into current PC100 or PC133 systems.

    The motherboard design has more to do with what kind of memory can be used then the processor. While it is true that the processor needs to be able to handle it, with the current G4 using DDR memory for one of it's cache levels, I would venture to say it would only be a minor tweak to get it to address system memory the same.

    Imagine a G4 (or G5 for that matter) at 1.4GHz plus, using PC2700 DDR memory... I would hope that Apple would also include at least a ATA100 or ATA133 controller for the hard drive to allow for less of a bottleneck there.
  12. PCUser macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2002
    I don't know where your prices are coming from, but you can get a stick of Micron PC2100 for $127. Also for desktop/tower system, not laptop.

    No, DDR is not cheaper then SDRAM (however, if you can get Apple SDRAM PC133 512MB for $115 there's not that much of a price difference), but it IS cheaper then RDRAM. (Samsung 512MB RDRAM at $150).

    The buses are 100, 133, 166, double pumped. They run effectively at 200, 266, and 333, but the actual clock ticks 100MHz, 133MHz, and 166MHz. (The PCXXXX means throughput for those who don't know... ie, PC1600 can put 1.6GB/s, PC2100 can put 2.1GB/s, and PC2700 can put 2.7GB/s theoretically. Also, to add to the confusion, sometimes the RAM sticks are called PC200, PC266, and PC333)

    I disagree, the chip has just as much to do with memory as the motherboard. The chip determines when and what it will send to the memory, and what the motherboard design will be.

    Also, just becase the cache uses it doesn't mean the rest of the processor can. The cache is a special part of the chip (even if it's not on the die). If the chip's main memory controller isn't DDR-compliant, it will treat DDR SDRAM as SDR SDRAM.
  13. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    But lets face it, memory is still dirt cheap. I have a gig in both my machines and the price differences you're talking about wouldn't keep me from putting in more in my new machine when I get it.

    As long as I don't buy it from Apple....;)
  14. AlphaTech macrumors 601


    Oct 4, 2001
    Natick, MA
    PCUser, I have found micron memory to be crap that is not worth buying. Every micron chip that I have come across has become useless if I update the firmware in a G4 (PC100 memory). Cheap crap memory, is still crap memory. Spend the few extra dollars, and get memory that doesn't have a history of failing (like micron does).

    How can you explain that there are motherboards for both p3, p4, duron, t-bird, and xp processors that use both PC100 and PC133 memory then?? There are also ones that use DDR memory. While it is true that the t-birds have either a 200 or 266 bus in them (and are sold as such), if the motherboard doesn't have the capability, it doesn't matter. I can't see it being much of a stretch for moto to make the next generation of chips (either G4 or G5) use DDR memory.

    I would also be willing to wager that the reason that we have not seen DDR capable Mac's is that they are waiting for the PC333/2700 memory to become more available. Just like what Apple did with USB, I would expect them to do with the memory. Before the iMac, how many peecee's out there had USB?? Can you even remember any?
  15. PCUser macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2002
    I'm sorry you've had such bad luck with Micron. Its never failed for me. Perhaps the Micron stuff for the mac sucks, who knows?

    I've used even "cheaper" generic brands that have never failed, as well. Simply because it doesn't cost very much doesn't mean it's "crap". Why should I spend the extra dollars when I've never had any trouble with the "cheap" stuff?

    (And unlike video cards, etc, where there is a difference in board & chip design, the difference in memory is how well someone manufactures it)

    The processors were designed to work with both DDR and SDR. It's not the motherboard alone. And it's not a cheap, simple change. There is the processor, the chipset, and the motherboard that have to support it. It took Intel until this year to support DDR in the P4... even VIA didn't make a DDR chipset for the P4 until late last year... and the P4 came out long before that. It's not a fast, simple change.

    Also, the PC333/2700 stuff isn't all that great right now. The memory chips fail even when they are marked to be "good". I wouldn't hold your breath about PC2700. It's a theoretical limit on the DDR memory design that they are hitting.

    I get the distinct impression that I've upset you. Why? Because I do not think a higher price always equals higher quality? Or is it becuase I use PC's?

Share This Page