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

Leaked: ****** Info!

Re: Another thought on the memory specs

Originally posted by jamin
Someone above said they thought that 8 GB of RAM was far fetched. I thought the whole reason for a 64 bit CPU was larger memory mapping. I think that If Apple releases Xserves with the 970 chips they will have even higher memory capacities.
Click to expand...

I don't know how far this logic flies.. but the way I initially see it is that todays machines.. PC's inparticular max out at 4GB of ram... with a 32Bit processor... so my ASSUMPTION is that a 64Bit processor would accept double that (8GB).

I am probably totally wrong.. but that's my unresearched opinion.
 
Actually I think the memory addressing is in the TeraBytes. I have read some info on the Athlon64 and that is what they are saying for that platform.

"Both the Opteron and Athlon 64 boast 64-bit data and address paths and break through current 32-bit CPUs' 4GB memory addressing cap with 40-bit physical (up to 1 terabyte) and 48-bit virtual (up to 256 terabytes) memory addressing space."
 
I think I said this in another forum...but I'll say it here...

I think this leak was a mistake. If it were a hack, Apple would immediately deny it with a Press Release. If it were intentional, we should then see more "teasers." Since Apple has been mum about the situation since the hours after it happened, it appears to have been an accidental posting of future product information.
 
Originally posted by markiv810
So, any speculation on pricing, my personal price range (estimate) is $1500 to 3500 - $4000
Click to expand...
That is too big a spread for most businesses to justify buying the top of the line. They would just go with the low/mid tier if it is $2500 cheaper.

This is my guess for the price range:
1.6 Ghz $1799
1.8 Ghz $2199
Dual 2.0 Ghz $2799
Dual 2.0 Ghz Best (Radeon 9800, more mem, bigger HD) $3399
 
Originally posted by gulliver
Have you ever thought that this world is a little bigger than just America? At midnight in Silicon Valley it is 9 a.m. in Europe and 8 p.m. in Japan!
Click to expand...

Apple has different stores for different countries. I believe the errant specs were only posted on the US store so someone going to the Japanese store site at 8pm would not have seen the change.
 
why no dual 1.8?

smeagol is going to use all those 'precious' 2nd 1.8's in the new 15" 970 powerbooks.... (wishful thinking)
 
Originally posted by chetwilliams
That is too big a spread for most businesses to justify buying the top of the line. They would just go with the low/mid tier if it is $2500 cheaper.

This is my guess for the price range:
1.6 Ghz $1799
1.8 Ghz $2199
Dual 2.0 Ghz $2799
Dual 2.0 Ghz Best (Radeon 9800, more mem, bigger HD) $3399
Click to expand...

No way no way no way no way......

I really truly feel the entry-level will start at $1399-$1499, just as current PowerMac prices are set at now. The PPC 970's are cheaper for Apple than current G4's are. I am sure that if this is true, Apple would not take advantage of this to get a higher profit margin. They will use this to pass the saving on and get more units sold instead of making more money on the units that actually do sell. At least I hope Apple will do this. If they don't, it will definately tarnish my view of them as the greatest computer company in the world.

All in all, my prediction is that the PowerMac line will either stay at current prices, or ideally, drop $100 across the line. We'll see Mon. won't we?
 
Re: G5 Specs

Originally posted by Ktulu
Take this info for what it is worth, I think they are legitimate specs and someone just got the wrong image mixed up with the right image.
Click to expand...
So, why were they futzing with the original image? It was set, fine, all perdy, but Apple just decided to do something with it to cause the problem in the firstplace...it doesn't make sense.
 
Re: Re: Another thought on the memory specs

Originally posted by crees!
I don't know how far this logic flies.. but the way I initially see it is that todays machines.. PC's inparticular max out at 4GB of ram... with a 32Bit processor... so my ASSUMPTION is that a 64Bit processor would accept double that (8GB).
Click to expand...
Just FYI, there's a much larger difference than that. This is one of the main reasons why the move from 8->16 bits was huge, 16->32 was enabling, and 32->64 is, well, kinda nice. 128 is quite a way off, even for most enterprise level needs.

Fire up your trusty calculator and hit 2^32. That is, in bytes, the addressable memory size of a 32 bit processor. Divide by 1024 (2^10) to get kilobytes, by another 1024 (2^10) to get megabytes, and by yet another 1024 to get gigabytes.

Or an easier way to do it is just to think "address space == 2^(bitLevel-30) gigabytes". Thus a 32-bit processor can address 4 gig, a 36-bit address-space processor (like recent intels) can address 64 gig, and a 64-bit processor can address 17179869184 gig.

There are other benefits -- being able to quickly perform 64-bit integer based arithmatic, for example, which is usefull if you feel like tracking items globally at a millimeter resolution. And numbering lots of them, for that matter.

-Richard
 
Originally posted by imaswitcheryeah
No way no way no way no way......

I really truly feel the entry-level will start at $1399-$1499, just as current PowerMac prices are set at now. The PPC 970's are cheaper for Apple than current G4's are. I am sure that if this is true, Apple would not take advantage of this to get a higher profit margin. They will use this to pass the saving on and get more units sold instead of making more money on the units that actually do sell. At least I hope Apple will do this. If they don't, it will definately tarnish my view of them as the greatest computer company in the world.

All in all, my prediction is that the PowerMac line will either stay at current prices, or ideally, drop $100 across the line. We'll see Mon. won't we?
Click to expand...

I agree shooting up the prices of the entry level PowerMac raised by $ 300 dollars would really suck. The price difference between the lowest end and highest end model would be something like 2000-2500 dollars. It's a dual 2.0 Ghz so I would guess the price difference between the entry level model would be something like 2000 dollars. We'll know on Monday. Good luck to us all.
 
Re: Legal issues

Originally posted by terceiro
These are good specs, yes. Will they be astronomically expensive? Heck yeah. If Apple is going to sell "the world's fastest personal computer" it's going to cost like it, too. That's how business works: when you want the best product you have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like a good idea to raise the price for the G5, especially considering the current G4's are more expensive than Intel/AMD computers already. Also keep in mind that this is still "only" 2GHz (even if it's dual) while Intel is at 3GHz and will be moving on in the near future.
 
As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.
 
Originally posted by Doctor Q
As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought about a gigabyte of memory just 10 years ago. It's nearly impossible to accurately predict future needs as with most things they grow exponentially.
 
hey guys.. a hybrid user here 😀 (use windows/mac os/linux)..

anyway, quick question.. now, if these specs are true, than the 1.6 ghz would have a DDR bus of 800.. no? and a TRUE bus speed of 400 mhz. now, how is DDR memory going to handle this? i mena, DDR 400, is supposed to handle a true FSB of 200 mhz..

is there going to be a Memory to FSB ratio of 1:2 ?
 
Originally posted by Mehmet
hey guys.. a hybrid user here 😀 (use windows/mac os/linux)..

anyway, quick question.. now, if these specs are true, than the 1.6 ghz would have a DDR bus of 800.. no? and a TRUE bus speed of 400 mhz. now, how is DDR memory going to handle this? i mena, DDR 400, is supposed to handle a true FSB of 200 mhz..

is there going to be a Memory to FSB ratio of 1:2 ?
Click to expand...

I believe your ratio is correct unless they use quad pumped ram which is just now coming out.
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
I believe your ration is correct unless they use quad pumped ram which is just now coming out.
Click to expand...

but but.. but...

nooo..


that means that apple is basically (if im not wrong) doing what intel is doing.. Quadpumping the FSB to make it look fast.. sorta like those honda civics with the huge mufflers..
 
Originally posted by Mehmet
but but.. but...

nooo..


that means that apple is basically (if im not wrong) doing what intel is doing.. Quadpumping the FSB to make it look fast.. sorta like those honda civics with the huge mufflers..
Click to expand...

Ah, no. The FSB is not quad pumped it actually burns along at that speed. The system bus may be quad pumped no one knows. There are other options with HyperTransport though I don't know anything about it really but I know it's a true speed rather then the quad pump, super pump, hyper pump, pumped pump, thing.
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Ah, no. The FSB is not quad pumped it actually burns along at that speed. The system bus may be quad pumped no one knows. There are other options with HyperTransport though I don't know anything about it really but I know it's a true speed rather then the quad pump, super pump, hyper pump, pumped pump, thing.
Click to expand...


ah, so its like a ratio that some of the super overclocking pc motherboards have.. memory to bus ratio's..

hrm.. that seems pretty c00.. but as the processors get faster, im guessign that apple thinks that memory will be able to keep up??

How bout dual channel? is it in the new macs?
 
Dose it matter whats reall and whats been hacked or slashed or what ever my first port of call is why is apple staying shumm on the matter of so called things going up then things going down and oh who the hell is in charge of apple anyways...... dont say steve because if he was well none of this so called crap should happen from what i keep reading about him been quite about things not letting things get out christ i let out more farts than he dose news......



Baring in mind that tormow i get my orignal i mac back from the shop and that i will be going what in godsname do i need this for bring on the 2ghz mommmaaaaaa
 
Re: Re: Re: Another thought on the memory specs

Originally posted by rjstanford
Just FYI, there's a much larger difference than that. This is one of the main reasons why the move from 8->16 bits was huge, 16->32 was enabling, and 32->64 is, well, kinda nice. 128 is quite a way off, even for most enterprise level needs.

Fire up your trusty calculator and hit 2^32. That is, in bytes, the addressable memory size of a 32 bit processor. Divide by 1024 (2^10) to get kilobytes, by another 1024 (2^10) to get megabytes, and by yet another 1024 to get gigabytes.

Or an easier way to do it is just to think "address space == 2^(bitLevel-30) gigabytes". Thus a 32-bit processor can address 4 gig, a 36-bit address-space processor (like recent intels) can address 64 gig, and a 64-bit processor can address 17179869184 gig.

There are other benefits -- being able to quickly perform 64-bit integer based arithmatic, for example, which is usefull if you feel like tracking items globally at a millimeter resolution. And numbering lots of them, for that matter.

-Richard
Click to expand...
This doesn't quite fly for the 970... According to the specs I'm looking at, the 970 only supports 42 bit "real addressing", which means it can handle 4096GB of physical memory (though potentially more virtual memory... like you'd need more in the forseeable future 😀 )

On a historical note, its a bit like the original 68000 that Apple had in the original Macs... That was a 32-bit CPU, but only had 24 bit "real addressing", so it could only handle 16MB of physical memory. When the Mac II came out it used a 68020 which supported 32 bit real addressing. Turned out lots of apps blew up on the Mac II solely because they'd used the other 8 bits of the addressing registers as bonus 8 bit registers to hold onto data... which of course caused page fault exceptions once the CPU understood what those extra 8 bits meant. Even Apple's own MacPaint failed!

I'm thinking the 970 won't be a naive as the 68000, and won't let you use the extra 22 bits that way 🙄

<edit>2^42 is 4096GB not 1024GB as originally stated</edit>
 
Originally posted by Mehmet
ah, so its like a ratio that some of the super overclocking pc motherboards have.. memory to bus ratio's..

hrm.. that seems pretty c00.. but as the processors get faster, im guessign that apple thinks that memory will be able to keep up??

How bout dual channel? is it in the new macs?
Click to expand...

Yeah if the rumors are correct they have dual channel on the dual processor machines with a memory bus for each processor. It's not really dual channel since it's for each processor but it is the same layout with dual paths of memory at the system bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back