Where's DDR ?!

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by terramax, Nov 8, 2002.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    I just cannot believe this one... I mean you build a STATE of the ART notebook. Through in EVERYTHING and still make it look great and yet... oh, wait let me see, yeah let's stick with 133MHZ SDRAM !!!!!
    What in the world where they smoking when they came up with that ?!

    I mean no one. NO one releases laptops without DDR anymore. And yet apple just thinks... well, we don't need fast memory, no, no the titanium shell will sell this little baby.

    I am deeply frustrated.
     
  2. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #2
    Re: Where's DDR ?!

    Oh dear........... :rolleyes:
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #4
    If you love DDR ram so much just buy a Dell and shut your pie whole :p
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #5
    I was wondering how long this would take.....
    (to get a flame that is):rolleyes:
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #6
    No, I bought a 2.2 ghz Xeon/128MBVCard/60GBHD/512MBRDRam for thousands less and twice the performance

    I like Apple, but they DO need to do some catching up
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    whats the point of having DDR right now the current g3/4 dont even take full advantage of it and it cost three times as much as sd-ram. i rather save some (err a lot) money on memory.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #8
    Without a DDR FSB, DDR RAM in the PBook would be worthless ... and here I thought everyone knew that by now. :eek:
     
  9. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    Is it really twice the performance or just twice the MHz?

    They really are two different concepts...
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #10
    I think thats what the original thread starter wanted to say. Why hasnt Apple made these advancements to their FSB so we could have ddr ram in the TiBook?

    Apple sure is far behind for being so revolutionary

    PLUS, if it saves money to have SDram in the Ti, then why are we paying so much for a Ti?
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #11
    I run Maya on both systems.

    Twice the performance in display and development speed (modeling/animating/particles), and 3 times the speed in rendering
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #12
    agreenster:

    Hopefully thats a dual Xeon cause otherwise you wasted your money. Single Xeons are more expensive than the essentially identical standard P4's, yet lack the 533mhz FSB.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
  14. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #14
    agreenster:

    Where did you find a dual Xeon for "thousands less", and why didn't you get a dual Athlon?
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #15
    My work bought my machine, and from what Ive heard, AMD is the way to go. I wish we would have gone with AMD.

    Anyway, I recently saw some benchmarks in a recent issue of Computer Graphics World, and AMD keeps up with the XEON in everything but gaming fps. (and who cares about that anyway)

    But yes, we got our dual Xeons for around 2000 bucks (w/ a monitor) w/ all the specs posted above. A dual 1gZ mac w/ the 128 Vid Card and big HD would run upwards of 3 grand or more.

    Cmon. You know macs cost more, I shouldnt have to convince you
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #16
    agreenster:

    Of course I know how much Macs cost, but last time I had checked places like Dell also wanted an arm and a leg for dual Xeons. :) Typing this from my Linux-dual-P3-Xeon-1meg, by the way.;)
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #17
    Thousands less? $1700 for an 867 Mhz dual processor G4 tower. To be thousands less it would have to be giving you money back...but how many thousands did you have to spend on security measures and system administration?
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #18
    gopher:

    Thanks, we needed a dose of irrational Mac-boosting. Really, we did. This place was, too, oh, logical. But you saved the day.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #19
    Thousands less for an equivalent system. Your dual 867 has neither the processing power nor the Video Card nor the DDR ram that the PC has for less money
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #20
    I agree with MR JOBS. There would be no significant speed increase if they incuded DDR ram. We have seen it with the current powermacs. It would be nice to say you have a DDR sysytem but you could be sure there would not have been a $200 price drop. Until they come out with the power4lite DDR will not be utilized. I think Putting DDR in the powermacs was just done to passify complaints.
     
  21. Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #21
    don't generalize and say "worthless"...stats show some improvement with DDR RAM as macworld has mentioned, but basically, you are right

    i would have liked to have seen DDR and i think it will definitely be in the next version of the tibook

    but we did get "1 ghz" and "superdrive"...things many of us posters have been asking for on these forums for some time now:D
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #22
    You cant just slap a DDR FSB on any chip.. you need a chip designed for DDR to get it to work. This Is Motos fault, NOT apples, and most likely be fixed by the Moble 970/G5?
     
  23. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #23
    Right

    Firstly I have to say I love you guys. I put on a remark about the TiBook and a few hours later there's this big discussion going on... lovely.

    To clarify things: I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings. I'm sorry if I might have phrased the question a little harshly. I do want to point out what I persume to be a major flaw in Apple's notebook.

    I own a top-spec Tibook, albeit the second generation one and I am very happy with it. It just baffles me that Apple uses some very antiquated hardware by industry standarts.

    And that includes the SLOW system bus (PC 400Mhz/Apple 133) the slow RAM (PC 266/Apple 133) and a, let's face it, old processor that was brilliant vor it's time but is just being milked and milked out... [ I was comparing "PC" laptops to Tibooks, therefore the stats, just to clarify]

    Anyway, let's hope that Apple gets these pressing problems sorted out. Other than that - I mean, they are the bomb :)
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    yzedf

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #24
    apple = eye candy

    there is not much emphasis on performance, and there hasn't been for a while now... :-(

    crappy system bus, memory bus, old processors, and odd choice in form factors.

    the laptops i love! ddr would be nice, but whatever.

    the desktops are, IMO, overpriced junk. they are not competitive with PC's in system performance, architecture, or configurability. th only thing they've got going for them is the OS. just now moving to ddr, using an implementation that tests no faster then the former generation pc133 generation! they are so bad, the only way to even try and compete is to double up the processors, which is only usefull for certain apps. did i mention price?

    it would be nice if they could compete on something other than quality of hype and advertising...

    *ducks flame*
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #25
    OS X and iApps. 'nuff said. and I don't know what's wrong with what you've used, but my Dual 867 has met and exceeded my every demand.
     

Share This Page