Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by jettredmont
I doubt that 4GB of memory on a stick went down in price by a factor of 10 in two weeks.
Especialy since the new motherboard is supposed to use DDR400, the Compaq memory you pointed to is older SDRAM, Sun memory could be 128 bits wide, you cannot compare those.

Corsair is reputed for its fast (CAS 2-2-2 @ 200 MHz) and reliable memory, these could be the chips that would fit in the new Macs:
http://www.corsairmemory.com/xms/xms_modules.html

Still no GiB on the horizon there.
 
Re: what's "truth"

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What's the difference between doing 4 transfers per cycle on a 200Mhz bus, and 1 transfer per cycle on an 800 MHz bus. Effectively none, right?

Effectively none on long bursts, but the latency on a quad-pumped 800MHz bus is 1/200M instead of 1/800M on a single-pumped 800MHz bus.

And, you are correct: the 970 is a 900MHz, dual-pumped bus. It transfers data at a rate equivalent to an 800MHz dual-pumped bus after overhead is taken into consideration.
 
Well I'm just upset now... I was expecting to get atleast 40GiB of memory. This is just wrong, only 32...shaw.... come on,what are we going to do with that???

I want more!! darnit! and I'm going to leave Apple if that is what they are only going to give me.

lol
 
Re: Re: Re: what's "truth"

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Huh?? Just over twice as fast?

First of all, the P4 bus is 64-bits wide, not 32-bits like the 970 bus. So, "one transfer" is 64-bits at 800 MHz, vs 32-bits at 900 MHz (assuming 1.8GHz CPU).

I don't think we know enough about the 970 bus and memory controller to compare latencies. Does the 970 have to use 2 transfers on the 32-bit bus to pass the 64-bit memory address? That will hurt latency.

I always thought it was the other way around. P4 = 32 bit, 970 = 64 bit. But that's something else. I wonder how many stages the 970's pipeline has? I've heard all sorts of different answers to that one.

Suppose I could look it up, but I'm tired and don't really care right now.

-

BTW - GIGA/GIGI... doesn't really matter. Can't they just call a 185GB hard drive a 185GB hard drive like with FP monitor sizes now?

(sorry, I'm cranky today) :mad:
 
Re: Re: Reading & writing at the same time

Originally posted by fourthtunz
I'm not sure about games but most of the best Audio,video and graphics software started life on the Mac.
Can I have a witness or an amen:D
daniel

Well, at the risk of being pedantic, most of the best *Audio* software started life on the Atari ST, but MATURED on the Mac.

(Cubase, Logic (Notator), etc)

Still, the PC is still the 'last platform it was ported to' in these cases, and in most of them, its obvious when you try to use them (Logic and Cubase always feel like mac apps, even on PC)
 
Re: Re: Re: Reading & writing at the same time

Originally posted by SuzanneA
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, most of the best *Audio* software started life on the Atari ST, but MATURED on the Mac.

(Cubase, Logic (Notator), etc)

Still, the PC is still the 'last platform it was ported to' in these cases, and in most of them, its obvious when you try to use them (Logic and Cubase always feel like mac apps, even on PC)
true :D
hey a female humanoide on the boards :D nice...
 
Here's some more of from MacB (not on the same thing, but interesting):

According to an internal source (Thank you Superced), Motorola started to manufacture chips in 0,09 Microns in the factory of Crolles 1. We do not know any more, but if Motorola manages to engrave of G4 to this smoothness, they could return in the race at the frequency. It will be difficult to catch up with the PPC 970 in installed capacity, but G4 with 0,09 given rhythm with 2GHz, would be an excellent candidate with the replacement of G3 in the entry of APPLE range, in particular in the portable. Remain to know if APPLE would manage to overcome its antagonisms to agree to have a common future. If one sticks to Roadmap Motorola (seldom followed by them same), G4 with 0,09 Microns would be 7457-rm (envisaged at the beginning into 0,10) which benefit from Rapid IO to maximize the band-width memory, large weak point of the current G4.
 
Re: Re: Re: what's "truth"

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Huh?? Just over twice as fast?

First of all, the P4 bus is 64-bits wide, not 32-bits like the 970 bus. So, "one transfer" is 64-bits at 800 MHz, vs 32-bits at 900 MHz (assuming 1.8GHz CPU).

I don't think we know enough about the 970 bus and memory controller to compare latencies. Does the 970 have to use 2 transfers on the 32-bit bus to pass the 64-bit memory address? That will hurt latency.

Does the 970 (or the P4) immediately forward the first chunk of data up through the cache levels to the registers? Or does it wait to fill a cache line (32 to 64 bytes) before making the data available - big latency issue here.

Most likely the 970 interface is packetised, like HyperTransport is, whereas the P4 bus is the old fashioned bus type that isn't packetised. Packetisation adds to the latency of course, but means that you can have thinner busses, and variable width busses (e.g., HyperTransport can vary from 2-bits in each direction to 32-bits in each direction), and also run the bus at faster speeds.

Previous to this rumour, I thought that a dual 970 PowerMac would have 1 northbridge that would connect to the processors (one port per processor), and a dual-channel memory controller.

Now I believe that each processor has its own Northbridge, with dual-channel memory controller. This makes sense, as the same northbridge element can be used for 1 processor designs (PowerBook, iMac2004, etc) up to many-processor designs (e.g., 8-processor Xserve or something). Hence 8 slots on the motherboard. Hence the IBM 980 having this (or similar) northbridge logic integrated into the processor.

I expect that this northbridges connect to each other, and other system components, using HyperTransport - even if the IBM 970 bus is not HyperTransport itself (a standard 6.4GB/s HyperTransport configuration is 16/16 at 800MHz DDR, not 32/32 at 450MHz DDR).

However I don't really trust the rumours since a couple of MacB rumours ago ... so using them as a basis for the above reasoning is not the safest thing to do.
 
Disk drives are accurately sold...

Originally posted by solvs
Can't they just call a 185GB hard drive a 185GB hard drive like with FP monitor sizes now?


They do! A 185GB drive has 185,000,000,000 bytes. (Actually, most of them have a bit more, the advertised size is usually rounded down to a nice number - e.g. the 120GB IBM/Hitachi drives are really 123.5GB)

Unfortunately, many operating systems say that the drive is 172.3 GiB, and people think that they lost 12GB to "formatting".
 
Re: Disk drives are accurately sold...

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Unfortunately, many operating systems say that the drive is 172.3 GiB, and people think that they lost 12GB to "formatting".
lol ?
 
Originally posted by joelc
I thought my 512 megs was pretty good...*looks sheepishly at Indigo iMac*
This is crazy stuff. How common is what ZeeOwl described? Do people actually need that kind of capacity?

In the wide world of Wintel, it's pretty rare. But in the Mac community, this is common stuff. And I assume that Apple is targeting Mac users with this new design. ;) Most PowerMacs out there are being used for high-end video/audio/scientific work. And in those types of applications (especially now with HDTV and 5.1 surround) you actually need about 20 GiB of work space. Having this much RAM would eliminate the need to make heavy use of virtual memory. Just that in itself would boost processing speed substantially. Couple that with a processor that is about twice as fast, and you have a killer high-end machine. We're talking PowerMac/XServe here, not iMac.
 
Audio on the Mac

Originally posted by SuzanneA
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, most of the best *Audio* software started life on the Atari ST, but MATURED on the Mac.

Ya, Ataris rock! lol I have two: a 1040ST and a Falcon 030. Then I 'switched' to a PowerMac B&W. Does that count? Can I be in a Switch ad? lol
 
Re: Disk drives are accurately sold...

Originally posted by AidenShaw
They do! A 185GB drive has 185,000,000,000 bytes. (Actually, most of them have a bit more, the advertised size is usually rounded down to a nice number - e.g. the 120GB IBM/Hitachi drives are really 123.5GB)

Unfortunately, many operating systems say that the drive is 172.3 GiB, and people think that they lost 12GB to "formatting".

Yup. And actually operating systems (including Mac OS X, you-hoo Apple!) incorrectly display it as 172.3 GB, instead of 172.3 GiB. They're misleading the user by not using the correct SI prefix. The number is right, it's the letters that are wrong. Sort of like when Americans come up here... If our speed limit signs said 100 mph, that would be misleading, because the limit is actually 100 km/h.
 
not using 20 GiB of VM today on a Mac....

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
In the wide world of Wintel, it's pretty rare.


Maybe "rare" in the $399 PC world, but 512MiB to a couple Gig is pretty common in the rest of the world.

My company puts 512MiB in a "secretary's desktop". Even though that would seem to be overkill, there's a big advantage. Win2K/XP are very good about taking unused memory for the filesystem cache. This means that those email/web desktops will be caching a lot of files - which reduces the load on the networks and file servers.

Workstations for engineers start at 1GiB, with a second GiB available just by ticking the "2 GiB" box on the internal requisition.

Standard laptops are 1GiB Dell Latitude D400s. My group just got a half dozen D600s with 2GiB - 1GiB isn't enough.


And in those types of applications (especially now with HDTV and 5.1 surround) you actually need about 20 GiB of work space. Having this much RAM would eliminate the need to make heavy use of virtual memory.

Ummm, you're not using virtual memory for 20 GiB of work space today - the 32-bit machine only has 4GiB virtual memory!

Maybe the programs are shuffling the data around in work files, or only keeping part of the source file in virtual memory - but today they're not keeping it all in virtual memory.

(Apologies if you knew this and your post wasn't clear enough - but FTR wanted to make sure that nobody read your post to think that 20 GiB VM apps were running today on the Mac.)
 
22 Days

22 DAYS TO GO.

Then we shall know who is right and who will have egg on their face,

... and who pays the big bucks to be the first on the block with the new toy.


:D

JJ
 
Re: not using 20 GiB of VM today on a Mac....

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Maybe "rare" in the $399 PC world, but 512MiB to a couple Gig is pretty common in the rest of the world.

My point exactly. Most of the PCs being sold now are in the 399$ to 799$ range. That's why most people buy PCs, because they're cheap. And the vast majority of the PC owners I know are using them for eMail, Web surfing and games, with some occasional word-processing. Who needs more than 2 GiB of RAM to do that? I only know one PC owner who does high-end (audio) stuff with her's. In the Mac world, the majority of PowerMac owners are using their machines for high-end work.

Ummm, you're not using virtual memory for 20 GiB of work space today - the 32-bit machine only has 4GiB virtual memory!

Maybe the programs are shuffling the data around in work files, or only keeping part of the source file in virtual memory - but today they're not keeping it all in virtual memory.

(Apologies if you knew this and your post wasn't clear enough - but FTR wanted to make sure that nobody read your post to think that 20 GiB VM apps were running today on the Mac.)

Yup you're right. It was kinda misleading. "Shuffling" and virtual memory are not the same thing, technically speaking. Right now, the work I do requires about 3 GiB of memory. And my machines only have 1 GiB of RAM. So I'm not sure if OS X is handling this as virtual memory or "shuffling", as I don't know what the logical memory limit is under OS X. All I can tell you is it works, but it's slow. :D So I'd enjoy having a machine with 4+ GiB of physical RAM.
 
Re: Re: Re: Reading & writing at the same time

Originally posted by SuzanneA
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, most of the best *Audio* software started life on the Atari ST, but MATURED on the Mac.

(Cubase, Logic (Notator), etc)

Still, the PC is still the 'last platform it was ported to' in these cases, and in most of them, its obvious when you try to use them (Logic and Cubase always feel like mac apps, even on PC)

Yeah I knew I could be opening up a can of worms! I almost bought an Atari but bought an Amiga 2000 with a video toaster in 92', that was an awesome machine! I was speaking of Protools, Avid and the Adobe stuff, I think was on the Mac first.
Peace
 
Re: Re: not using 20 GiB of VM today on a Mac....

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
My point exactly. Most of the PCs being sold now are in the 399$ to 799$ range. ... In the Mac world, the majority of PowerMac owners are using their machines for high-end work.


A couple of points.

First of all, you're comparing bargain basement PCs with Powermacs - when perhaps a better comparison would be Powermacs with Intel workstations (single P4 or duals). Compared price-for-price, there's probably much less difference in memory and whether the user is "high-end" or not. Or, compare the $700 PC with the eMac or iMac...

Second, it isn't clear how much memory those bargain PCs will really have - 128MiB is the min, but memory upgrades are probably the most common option that people would take. Your comment that 512MiB is rare in the PC world is not easy to prove or disprove.

Don't take offense, but your "high-end" comments do come across as a bit elitist. There are lots of high-end PC users as well, but since you aren't comparing Intel workstations to PowerMacs you miss them.

This is like the "Mac users are better educated" stories - when of course that's obvious. Since Macs are on average more expensive, and since income is correlated with education level, simple statistics would predict that more expensive computers would tend to be bought by better educated people.

(And before anyone shouts that "Macs are not more expensive", please show me the $399 Mac to match the PCs that we're talking about here!)
 
Re: 22 Days

Originally posted by JJTiger1
22 DAYS TO GO.

Then we shall know who is right and who will have egg on their face,

... and who pays the big bucks to be the first on the block with the new toy.


:D

JJ

Yeah.........


I am willing to sell my iMac, flat screen (it's the new one with the dome thing).

Along with pro speakers, and an epson printer.

And a Sony Clié (NX70V, it the one with the swivel screen and built in camera and video recorder), and with that you get 4 games (on an average of $15 dollars worth each). I will also include 4 memory sticks:

One 128MB
2 32MB
1 16MB

I will request about $2100 for all of that, who wants it?
 
Originally posted by joelc
I thought my 512 megs was pretty good...*looks sheepishly at Indigo iMac*
This is crazy stuff. How common is what ZeeOwl described? Do people actually need that kind of capacity?

Well, depends on what you do really. For home use, you'll probably not need it to quickly - because basically you dont know how to handle the software that does need the memory. However, I was recently attached to a little project that stuggled with a 200GB textureized Data.
Nice if you can render without swapping to HD.
 
Re: Re: Re: The Return Of The RAM Disk?

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Ok, so for the slower ones in our viewing audience,(me) you're saying that the ram disk would no longer be needed because the os is doing the same thing behind the scenes?
Setting one up in OS 9 and previous was easy but 1 gig isn't enough at least for audio and video to matter.
So I guess my next questions would be how much ram can an app use under os X and can you set up a ram disk?
I would still love to have 12 gigs or so of ram disk to capture to, seems like it would have to speed up renders? peace
daniel

Under MacOS X all disk transfers (read & write) are cached in memory. If nothing else is using the memory, then in theory your program could take up all available memory. In practice, the OS tends to leave a small reserve around and comits disk writes very quickly to avoid data loss, but by caching in memory it allows programs to retain as much as possible in memory (up to 4GB per process) where it is faster to access. I'm pretty certain you can see this with an Audio CD in iTunes. When you play a track the first time, you will hear it reading from the CD - on subsequent times the track will play from memory even allowing the CD to spin down completely (I know I've done this playing audio cd programatically, but I don't know if iTunes turns off the disk caching for it's reads).
 
Re: Re: Re: not using 20 GiB of VM today on a Mac....

Originally posted by AidenShaw
A couple of points.

First of all, you're comparing bargain basement PCs with Powermacs - when perhaps a better comparison would be Powermacs with Intel workstations (single P4 or duals). Compared price-for-price, there's probably much less difference in memory and whether the user is "high-end" or not. Or, compare the $700 PC with the eMac or iMac...

That wasn't my point. Of course a low-end PC isn't comparable to a high-end Mac. In performance or price. My point was that the ratio of high-end to low-end users in the Mac community is much higher than in the PC community (of course, that started shifting when the iMac came out). I'm sorry if this comes off as "elitist", but it's an undeniable fact. What are the traditional Mac strongholds? Publishing, film, music, academia, scientific research. What are the traditional PC strongholds? Home computing, games, mainstream business, internet. That's just the way things are... :) That's why I was pointing out that for a PowerMac, 32 GiB maximum RAM capacity is far from overkill. It's a necessity, as high-end apps will need this within the next 5 or so years. And high-end apps is what most PowerMac owners are using on their machines.
 
Re: Re: Re: what's "truth"

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Huh?? Just over twice as fast?

First of all, the P4 bus is 64-bits wide, not 32-bits like the 970 bus. So, "one transfer" is 64-bits at 800 MHz, vs 32-bits at 900 MHz (assuming 1.8GHz CPU).

I don't think we know enough about the 970 bus and memory controller to compare latencies. Does the 970 have to use 2 transfers on the 32-bit bus to pass the 64-bit memory address? That will hurt latency.

Does the 970 (or the P4) immediately forward the first chunk of data up through the cache levels to the registers? Or does it wait to fill a cache line (32 to 64 bytes) before making the data available - big latency issue here.

It was stated that the 970 bus is a transaction based bus, which I read as a packetized bus. I would expect that a memory request would be more that just sending the memory location in either system, but I don't know anything about bus protocols themselves. In order to avoid retransmitting a memory address I would expect the 970's bus protocol to transmit at least 32 bytes for any memory read - a 4-byte 'read' command, the 42-bit zero padded memory address, and a 4-byte 'tag' value. The tag value would be used for refering to the transaction from there out. Writes would be similar, but instead of the tag value the actual data would burst. Of course that little bit is just speculation :D.

And 2 back-to-back transfers actually won't hurt latency - bursts do arrive at the advertized (800 or 900Mhz) rate. It's only the first event - the lead transfer - that suffers latency. But the fact that every transaction must have a lead transfer means that the latency inherent in the bus will reduce it's efficiency when double or more pumped. In the past latency was kind of ignored in busses because they were all single pumped - Joe's 200Mhz bus had the same latency as John's 200Mhz bus. But when Jack came out with a 200Mhz bus that worked by double pumping a 100Mhz bus latency suddenly became an issue of comparison.

I don't know exactly how the cache affects this issue. I think that previous PowerPCs would have to at least obtain the critical word before it could be forwarded. SDRAM systems I've read always forward the critical word first, so that would mean that there is less wait. RDRAM systems do not always send the critical word first, and thus an increase in latency. So I would expect this issue to only hurt P4 systems running with RDRAM.

Damn I wish there were more info out on the 970 - it's hard waiting for that users manual :D
 
Re: Re: Disk drives are accurately sold...

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Yup. And actually operating systems (including Mac OS X, you-hoo Apple!) incorrectly display it as 172.3 GB, instead of 172.3 GiB. They're misleading the user by not using the correct SI prefix. The number is right, it's the letters that are wrong. Sort of like when Americans come up here... If our speed limit signs said 100 mph, that would be misleading, because the limit is actually 100 km/h.

I would think this is mearly inertia. I have yet to see any computer industry literature use these SI prefixes (and given they have been out since 1999 and it seems people are just starting to use them 4 years later it doesn't seem like this will be coming soon).

Personally, I think that we could have avoided the whole issue if the storage industry had just used x-byte prefixes like everyone else in the computer industry does instead of first coming out with the whole 'formatted capacity' bull and then finally admitting that they are just measuring 1GB=1 billion bytes. That is what I think confuses people more than GB or GiB.
 
Re: Re: Re: not using 20 GiB of VM today on a Mac....

Originally posted by AidenShaw
A couple of points.
since income is correlated with education level

Well these damn numbers, the richest man in the world is a college dropout and not a Mac user!(or is he??)
I do agree with what you say though, we Mac users are smarter:D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.