Where's DDR ?!

terramax

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
10
0
London, England
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.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Re: Where's DDR ?!

Originally posted by terramax
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.
Oh dear........... :rolleyes:
 

Mr Jobs

macrumors regular
Apr 7, 2002
188
0
London, England
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.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Without a DDR FSB, DDR RAM in the PBook would be worthless ... and here I thought everyone knew that by now. :eek:
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Originally posted by agreenster


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
Is it really twice the performance or just twice the MHz?

They really are two different concepts...
 

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
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?
 

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
Originally posted by Sun Baked


Is it really twice the performance or just twice the MHz?

They really are two different concepts...
I run Maya on both systems.

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

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
agreenster:

No, I bought a 2.2 ghz Xeon/128MBVCard/60GBHD/512MBRDRam for thousands less and twice the performance
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.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
agreenster:

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

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
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
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
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.;)
 

gopher

macrumors 65816
Mar 31, 2002
1,474
0
Maryland, USA
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?
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
gopher:

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

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
Originally posted by gopher
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?
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
 

User X

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2002
85
0
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.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by ddtlm
Without a DDR FSB, DDR RAM in the PBook would be worthless ... and here I thought everyone knew that by now. :eek:
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
 

Jimong5

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
296
0
Originally posted by agreenster
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
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?
 

terramax

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
10
0
London, England
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 :)
 

yzedf

macrumors 65816
Nov 1, 2002
1,161
0
Connecticut
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*
 

Jimong5

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
296
0
Originally posted by yzedf
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*
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.