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

RAM Expansion

The main logic board of some configurations of the Power Mac G5 computer have four pairs of DDR SDRAM expansion slots for unbuffered DDR400 (PC3200) dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) for a maximum memory of 8 GB. The main logic board of other configurations of the Power Mac G5 computer have 2 pairs of DDR SDRAM expansion slots for unbuffered DDR333 (PC2700) dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) for a maximum memory of 4 GB.

Each DIMM can contain 256 and 512 MB (also is capable of 128 MB, 1 GB, and has future expansion ability of 2 GB) of double data rate synchronous dynamic RAM (DDR SDRAM). At least one pair of the RAM expansion slots contains factory installed DIMMs.

Additional DIMMs must be installed in pairs of the same size. The slot pairs are numbered: J11 and J12, J13 and J14, J41 and J42, and J43 and J44; see Figure 4-1 for slot locations and numbering for both the 8-slot and 4-slot configurations. When installing additional memory, populate starting with the lowest slot pair numbers. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory.

For all microprocessor speeds and for both DDR400 (PC3200) and DDR333 (PC2700) SDRAM DIMMs, the Power Mac G5 supports CAS latencies of 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5.

And the Power Mac G5 RAM requirement

DIMM Specifications

The RAM expansion slots accept 184-pin DDR SDRAM DIMMs that are 2.5 volt, unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, and DDR400-compliant (PC3200) or DR333-compliant (PC2700).

Important

DDR266 (PC2100) or slower DIMMs do not work in the Power Mac G5 computer.

Important

DIMMs with any of the following features are not supported in the Power Mac G5 computer: registers or buffers, PLLs, ECC, parity, or EDO RAM.

Mechanical Specifications

The mechanical design of the DDR SDRAM DIMM is defined by the JEDEC specification JESD21-C, MODULES4_20_4, Release 11b. To find this specification on the World Wide Web, refer to "RAM Expansion Modules" (page 80).

The maximum height of DIMMs for use in the Power Mac G5 computer is 2 inches.

Electrical Specifications

The electrical design of the SDRAM DIMM is defined by the JEDEC specification JESD21-C, MODULES4_20_4, Release 11b. To find this specification on the World Wide Web, refer to "RAM Expansion Modules" (page 80).

The Serial Presence Detect (SPD) EEPROM specified in the JEDEC standard is required and must be set to properly define the DIMM configuration. The EEPROM is powered on 3.3 V. Details about the required values for each byte on the SPD EEPROM can be found on pages 68-70 of the JEDEC specification.

Important

For a DIMM to be recognized by the startup software, the SPD feature must be programmed properly to indicate the timing modes supported by the DIMM.
 
Originally posted by benixau
PowerMac G5 theoretical maximum RAM = 4TB.
just needs a firmware update - scary huh?

It would probably require a little more than a firmware update.

That would be 4,096 184pin 1GB DIMMs for example, or about $1,920,000 USD at current Apple store prices. This would require about 30,000 Amps of power, or 66 kilowatts and need about 80 meters of board space. This would, incidently, cost you around $10,000 US an hour to operate at Japanese electricity prices (~1.2Million yen) and probably drop the voltage of the entire power grid when you powered it on. <brown-out>"Gall dang it! benixau turned on his computer again..."
:D

-Wyrm
 
Originally posted by Wyrm
It would probably require a little more than a firmware update.

That would be 4,096 184pin 1GB DIMMs for example, or about $1,920,000 USD at current Apple store prices. This would require about 30,000 Amps of power, or 66 kilowatts and need about 80 meters of board space. This would, incidently, cost you around $10,000 US an hour to operate at Japanese electricity prices (~1.2Million yen) and probably drop the voltage of the entire power grid when you powered it on. <brown-out>"Gall dang it! benixau turned on his computer again..."
:D

-Wyrm

ROFLMAO - that last bit is hilarious.
But what i mean is that we will eventually have 512GB modules. 8 of those will equal 4TB of RAM.

As for your power calculations (still chuckling) tell me how much power it would take to do 8GB of RAM based on 16MB EDO RAM???
 
Originally posted by Shadowfax
what did you say?

better look harder next time ;)

also, apple RAM has always been more expensive. i dunno why, probably the classic "we use better quality products, even though a lot of idiots with hardware problems on their PCs don't think so."
That is PC-2100 or DDR 266
The G5 uses PC-3200 or DDR 400
And newegg is alot better for RAM
link
 
Originally posted by void
That is PC-2100 or DDR 266
The G5 uses PC-3200 or DDR 400
And newegg is alot better for RAM
link
before you address a post that's 2 pages back, you should try reading some of the posts after it, as well as the phrasing that caused me to say that. when i posted, i was fully aware that it was PC2100, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a 1 GB stick of RAM. but anyways, so you don't have to trouble yourself or strain your faculties, here's a quick recap of what was said within about 12 hours of that:
Originally posted by Frohickey
Um... you need to clean your glasses. Thats a 200pin SODimm module. Though, there is a PC2100 184pin DDR DIMM in a 2GB size. (I feel like Ahnuld... go to a store, I want a PC3200 DDR DIMM in a 2GB size, and a phased plasma rifle in 40W range. :)

G5s use PC2700 (333MHz) and PC3200 (400MHz).
Originally posted by utilizer
Sorry shadow, but the G5 uses 184-pin DDR RAM, not 200-pin RAM, so I assume they're just not available yet in the 1 Gig config yet. Besides, Crucial would tell you if one was available when you put in the PowerMac G5, which it doesn't. I was wrong earlier when I said something about 16 banks of memory only costs $1504 from those guys, but the G5 only has 8 banks; again, they don't list DDR400 184-pin 1 GB chipsets...yet. Time will tell.
Originally posted by Shadowfax
thanks for setting me straight, but someone had already done so. i wasn't implying that they sold PC2700 or 3200 1 GB sticks, you just said, plain as day, that they didn't sell 1 GB sticks, which they do, both the cited SODIMMS i linked and PC133 RAM... i was just playing around. i definitely don't need glasses. i can read, and you did say they didn't sell 1 GB sticks, and they do. just not PC2700 or 3200.
i'm sorry if i sound mean, but i think it's impolite to try and show people up when all you're really doing is being redundant.
 
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I'd put more faith in the maximum you see anywhere than anything less; the rev. A iBook had a "maximum" of 160 MB, but I've got one with 288, and I've seen them with up to 544.

Besides, who really needs more than 8 GB, anyway?

Oracle on OS X Server.

I do (if Oracle would get out of RC stages). My company is evaluating Oracle on Linux and Solaris. If 9i can get out of RC stage for OS 10.3 I'll have them consider it as well.

Apple has their window, they just need to open it.
 
Originally posted by benixau
ROFLMAO - that last bit is hilarious.
But what i mean is that we will eventually have 512GB modules. 8 of those will equal 4TB of RAM.

As for your power calculations (still chuckling) tell me how much power it would take to do 8GB of RAM based on 16MB EDO RAM???

Yeah pretty funny. 512GB Ram modules?!
Assuming a new memory (which is probably coming anyway soon -maybe with DDR-II in the near-term), it would require a process 1/32 of what it is today - say 3.125nm vs 100nm... er I'm not sure you could fab a transistor that small... without some radical shift in design philosophy. There'd be about 3072 billion transistors per module (that's about 300 times more than the number of stars in the Milky-Way GALAXY! PER MODULE!)

To give you a size comparison, Blue light is 300nm, the colbalt alloy grain used in contempory HDD is about 10nm, and Silicon has a diamond cubic structure (5 atoms) with a unit cell dimension about 0.542nm (great useless knowledge factoid), so that would be an entire transistor about 5-6 cells wide; 25-30 ATOMS!. Wooo...

Ok, assuming the miracles of materials science keep up with the ever-increasingly misquoted "Moore's law" (in fact this is a misquote - but assuming gate length halves every 18 months)
That's 5 iterations for 90 months, or 7.5 years!!!!

Hmmm... that's not too far away is it? About 2011 or so.

Let's hope Apple's not stuck again "*whine* *whine* *whine* - Apple is only 1850Ghz, while WinIntel is 7292Ghz!"

I suppose my virtual reality universe will run great in OS X... (aka 10.11).

I guess a blue screen of DEATH would take on a more accurate meaning! (remember: "the body cannot live without the mind" - The Matrix) :D

We'll be there, saying "...I remember when I was young we had... mice to move a thing around a screen made of blocks called 'pic-suls' and you had to type on something called a 'keee-board'..... none of this new-fangled 'Jack-me-in!'... <grumble> <grumble> <grumble> <Zzzzz>"

Needless to say, 64bits will last a while.

:D

-Wyrm
 
Originally posted by jamilecrire
Oracle on OS X Server.

I do (if Oracle would get out of RC stages). My company is evaluating Oracle on Linux and Solaris. If 9i can get out of RC stage for OS 10.3 I'll have them consider it as well.

Apple has their window, they just need to open it.
Hehe... I always laugh when I hear something like this. Let's see, if Oracle for OS X can just get out of beta, and Jaguar can get out of beta, and Apple can build an Xserve that holds 8GB of RAM, and, and, and...

Whatever happened to using the right tool for the job? A Sun box is great for Oracle. I wouldn't suggest you use the Sun box for desktop publishing, just like I wouldn't suggest you use the Apple box as an enterprise database server.
 
Originally posted by illumin8
Hehe... I always laugh when I hear something like this. Let's see, if Oracle for OS X can just get out of beta, and Jaguar can get out of beta, and Apple can build an Xserve that holds 8GB of RAM, and, and, and...

Whatever happened to using the right tool for the job? A Sun box is great for Oracle. I wouldn't suggest you use the Sun box for desktop publishing, just like I wouldn't suggest you use the Apple box as an enterprise database server.

Sun is not even close to Linux as an Oracle box. With clustering you can beat sun hands down on cost and performance. I like Solaris on SPARC but it's losing it's competitive advantage quickly. With OS X and Oracle it will give me another option outside of the probable choice of Linux. Solaris/SPARC is too expensive.

For example, my parent company (billion dollar pharaceutical company) has a Sun SPARC based data warehouse that cost close to 1.5 million to install. However they run all their current apps off of a Linux/Oracle combo on cheap hardware and get 10x the performance.

I love it when people who don't actually use the software/hardware comment on things they have no experience in.

Thanks troll.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.