Apple hurry: DDRII-SDRAM is out

[groov']

While Apple still has to catch up with the other companies to get all products to DDR-SDRAM, technology has already taken the next step: DDRII-SDRAM.

This is the beginning of today's pressrelease from Samsung:

"Ê Seoul, Korea - May 28, 2002: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the world's leader in advanced semiconductor memory technology, today announced the industry's first DDR-II device, a high-density 512Mb DDR-II SDRAM, that it expects to be the next-generation mainstream DRAM technology for high-speed systems.

Samsung's 512Mb DDR-II SDRAM fully satisfies the JEDEC DDR-II standard set in March 2002. The device has a low 1.8-volt Vdd and has data transfer rates of 533Mbps that can be extended to a maximum of 667Mbps for networks and special system environments. With the availability of Samsung's new 512Mb DDR-II SDRAM device, high-speed, performance-enhanced, next-generation memory designs are now a reality. "

You can find the whole article
here .

update: Samsung announced 1066Mhz RDRAM device one day later (see my post further down (11)

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Interesting that it starts out at 512 megs, nice. Oh, I don't imagine this to be used by Apple any time soon, such a shame though.

 

[TiMacLover]

Not knowning how the hell Apple will play ( which makes them rock) they will ship G5 systems with DDRIII memory

 

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by TiMacLover
Not knowning how the hell Apple will play ( which makes them rock) they will ship G5 systems with DDRIII memory

Yeahhhh! That sounds like the Apple we know! We'll be lucky if we see anything faster than DDR133 (266). I have a feeling much bigger things are in store for when the G5 premieres.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Hemingray


Yeahhhh! That sounds like the Apple we know! We'll be lucky if we see anything faster than DDR133 (266). I have a feeling much bigger things are in store for when the G5 premieres.

Actually, the DDR memory at 266 is commonly referred to as PC2100 memory, not DDR133. I would expect Apple to use at least PC2100 memory or PC2700 memory in the G5 line, if not the next release/update of the current G4 line. Later as PC3000+ memory becomes more available, I am sure Apple will adopt it into their systems. It is a bit unfortunate that Apple takes a while to update some of the technology inside their systems, or on motherboards, but when they do, it's typical that they don't cut corners.

 

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
It is a bit unfortunate that Apple takes a while to update some of the technology inside their systems, or on motherboards, but when they do, it's typical that they don't cut corners.

very true...but as they always do...they get a few steps behind....then come forward a step or two ahead of the game....then they do it all over again...

always playing catch up....don't u think they would ever learn?

 

[firewire2001]

if you think about it.. apple hasnt really ever made many new advances in hardware ever .. except for their old scsi drives and their processors, of course ...

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by firewire2001
if you think about it.. apple hasnt really ever made many new advances in hardware ever .. except for their old scsi drives and their processors, of course ...

I guess you have forgotten about FIREWIRE then. Also Apple was the first to use the 12Mb USB. Before that, everyone else was using the lower speeds of USB.

 

[stoid]

Why the hell do you need RAM that fast, if your computer can't analyze data that fast. It's like comparing electricity to light, it moves so fast the difference doesn't really matter. I don't want to get flamed here, I just want to know why RAM that outdates processors by another generation is really a big deal/

 

[OldFaithful]

Originally posted by stoid
Why the hell do you need RAM that fast, if your computer can't analyze data that fast. It's like comparing electricity to light, it moves so fast the difference doesn't really matter. I don't want to get flamed here, I just want to know why RAM that outdates processors by another generation is really a big deal/

nope, in fact the P4 chip wasn't even near its full potential until the i850E chipset, which has a 533fsb, was released last month. Not sure about the G4/G5, but the P4 and Athlon definitely use the faster memory and from the benchmarks at Tom's Hardware show...it makes a big difference you half-wit.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by OldFaithful
nope, in fact the P4 chip wasn't even near its full potential until the i850E chipset, which has a 533fsb, was released last month. Not sure about the G4/G5, but the P4 and Athlon definitely use the faster memory and from the benchmarks at Tom's Hardware show...it makes a big difference you half-wit.

The pee4 is acutally using four 133fsb's (to get the 533 number), not a single 533 bus. AMD's XP series is using a single 266fsb.

As for faster memory being needed... it reduces bottlenecks in the hardware.

Another area that really increases performance is the cache levels and amounts. While both AMD and intel have L1 and L2 caches (AMD has 128k L1, and 256k L2, where intel has 256 L2) only the new G4 has a L3 cache with DDR memory (either 1MB or 2MB per processor). That along give a HUGE boost in performance.

Oh, and I for one, don't really care where the pee4 is at for it's 'potential'. I will never buy a system with an intel chip inside it.

 

[groov']

higher..... 1066 mhz RDRAM

Samsung keeps rolling out innovations.

Was it DDRII SDRAM yesterday, today it's 1066 Mhz RDRAM!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung cranks up 1066 RDRAM
By Drew Cullen
Posted: 29/05/2002 at 08:55 GMT

The company is to ramp up production of new 1066MHz RDRAM RIMM modules, to satisfy "surging demand" from makers of PC, workstations and serious gaming machines. Intel has not validated the new Rambus 1066MHz device - because it's "stretched too thin", EBN's Jack Robertson reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

see the whole article in the Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/25489.html

See also the Rambus RDRAM page from Samsung:

http://www.samsungelectronics.com/semiconductors/DRAM/rambus_dram/rambus_dram.htm

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


The pee4 is acutally using four 133fsb's (to get the 533 number), not a single 533 bus. AMD's XP series is using a single 266fsb.

As for faster memory being needed... it reduces bottlenecks in the hardware.

Another area that really increases performance is the cache levels and amounts. While both AMD and intel have L1 and L2 caches (AMD has 128k L1, and 256k L2, where intel has 256 L2) only the new G4 has a L3 cache with DDR memory (either 1MB or 2MB per processor). That along give a HUGE boost in performance.

Oh, and I for one, don't really care where the pee4 is at for it's 'potential'. I will never buy a system with an intel chip inside it.

Actually, the p4 is using ONE 133fsb, but one that is quad-pumped (much like how the Athlon XP is double pumped). That only means that data is being sent at both the peaks and the troughs of a cpu cycle as well as at the two points where they have zero amplitude.

 

[ktlx]

Nice to see someone with a clue

Originally posted by topicolo


Actually, the p4 is using ONE 133fsb, but one that is quad-pumped (much like how the Athlon XP is double pumped). That only means that data is being sent at both the peaks and the troughs of a cpu cycle as well as at the two points where they have zero amplitude.

It is nice to see someone who understands memory access reply. As long as the G4 is using a 133Mhz FSB, there is no point in using anything faster than DDR 266 memory. As an example, look at the benchmarks comparing the Athlon XP processors with the VIA KT266 and VIA KT333 chipsets. There is almost no difference beyond that attributable to other improvements.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Processors...

Originally posted by stoid
Why the hell do you need RAM that fast, if your computer can't analyze data that fast. It's like comparing electricity to light, it moves so fast the difference doesn't really matter. I don't want to get flamed here, I just want to know why RAM that outdates processors by another generation is really a big deal/

...are way ahead of ram and always have been. The G4 is absolutely crippled by slow ram I've seen cases where data throughput on an RGB->CMYK conversion algorithm was dropped from 2 billion pixels per second to 133 million because of slow ram. The *only* reasons that the Pentium 4 can keep up with the much beefier AthlonXPs are it's clock frequency and its insane ram bandwidth (4.2Gb/sec on the new ones).

 

[topicolo]

Re: Nice to see someone with a clue

Originally posted by ktlx


It is nice to see someone who understands memory access reply. As long as the G4 is using a 133Mhz FSB, there is no point in using anything faster than DDR 266 memory. As an example, look at the benchmarks comparing the Athlon XP processors with the VIA KT266 and VIA KT333 chipsets. There is almost no difference beyond that attributable to other improvements.

Thanks for the compliment, it looks like I knew what I was talking about for once . I agree, apple needs to stop sitting on the fence and start agressively adopting emerging technologies again. I can understand why apple delayed in adopting DDR (fear for lack of supply), but they have no excuse for not using a quad-pumped bus like intel's newest mobo. Apple should use some of its $3 billion or so dollars in cash and marketable securites and launch a huge advertising campaign for the imac and increase their R&D spending to boot.

 

[Cappy]

Dual channel ddr is where ddr will finally shine bandwidthwise above rambus. I'm hoping that Apple is moving in that direction.

 

[teabgs]

I dont really think it matters so much what kind of RAM we get to next unless they increase the system bus, period. It's worse to have such a slow bus at this point then it is that we dont have DDR yet. IMO...

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by TiMacLover
Not knowning how the hell Apple will play ( which makes them rock) they will ship G5 systems with DDRIII memory

ddr-2 or 3 would be happening and very good for apple inc... and just skipping the regular ddr1 266mhz thing

look how short lived the blue and white g3 tower was before apple came in with the g4

apple will catch on to the ddr thing and when they do, it won't be at square one in the technology of the ram type

 

[topicolo]

It seems like apple has always been behind in terms of bus speed. I mean, back when intel was using 60-66Mhz buses, Apple was using 33-50Mhz buses. I remember Power Computing making a big splash because their PowerCenter Pro's used 60Mhz buses.

Looks like Apple is just follow its trend, but falling farther behind

 

[teabgs]

Originally posted by topicolo


Looks like Apple is just follow its trend, but falling farther behind

I think its a bit early to say that...We have just over one month left before MWNY. ANYTHING could happen. Maybe after July this can be a valid statement, but they might surprise us this time.

I sure hope so, after last time....even though the iMac is pretty cool...too bad I saw it early..

They may come out with DDR 2 or 3... As long as they at least have 266 DDR AND....this is a critical and ...A faster bus I will be pleased and Apple will not be as far behind...

 

[topicolo]

I'm hoping that apple copies intel and introduces a quad-pumped fsb with DDR-II RAM, but I know that's not likely to happen. I mean, DDR-II wouldn't happen for the same reason that DDR ram wasn't included last year--apple's afraid of being caught in a supply issue. As for the QDR fsb, that's also unlikely because that would mean that the new powermacs would blow away the XSERVEs performancewise, and apple just can't allow that to happen. My guess is apple is (unfortunately) going to introduce a desktop version of their XSERVE mobo.

 

[teabgs]

Originally posted by topicolo
My guess is apple is (unfortunately) going to introduce a desktop version of their XSERVE mobo.

most likely that will happen....with a slight speed boost....but its still better then whats out now...

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by topicolo
It seems like apple has always been behind in terms of bus speed. I mean, back when intel was using 60-66Mhz buses, Apple was using 33-50Mhz buses. I remember Power Computing making a big splash because their PowerCenter Pro's used 60Mhz buses.

Looks like Apple is just follow its trend, but falling farther behind

apple is literally one tenth the size of its bigger competitors out in silicon valley so apple inc does not have the manpower or the funds to keep up with the big boys

i think apple is doing fine by just surviving in the first place...look who has bitten the dust or have been bought out in high tech since apple has started

 

[j763]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


apple is literally one tenth the size of its bigger competitors out in silicon valley so apple inc does not have the manpower or the funds to keep up with the big boys

i think apple is doing fine by just surviving in the first place...look who has bitten the dust or have been bought out in high tech since apple has started

well said!