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

bradz_id

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 16, 2002
68
0
Tasmania, Australia
DDR2 preforms POORER by a significant margin at the same clock speed as DDR because it has much higher latency. I think this is a stupid move by apple and it is just a marketing thing. Yes, DDR2 uses a little less power but not much. I think it's even the same chipset or a slightly different one but it doesn't have any IMPROVEMENTS. Stupid!
 
I agree, it is marketing. Remember, though, that even standard DDR is faster than the bus for the G4. Its really pointless to use any DDR with a G4, aside from marketing and availability issues.
 
robbieduncan said:
1Gb DDR2 SO-DIMMs are cheaper (at least where I was looking) in the UK than standard DDR.
It's less expensive most everywhere and as they slow down producing DDR ram, the price difference will increase even more.
 
screensaver400 said:
I agree, it is marketing. Remember, though, that even standard DDR is faster than the bus for the G4. Its really pointless to use any DDR with a G4, aside from marketing and availability issues.

Athlon XP's used DDR and their FSB's were running at half the speed of the RAM too. Making the memory itself faster does increase system performance regardless of the FSB. Now you'd probably gain alot from a faster FSB but the performance gain is still there without it.
 
Yes, DDR2 can clock faster but apple only has it running at 167MHz (DDR333). I wouldn't touch DDR unless it was low latency DDR667 like corsair 5400UL.
 
With DDR2, the memory capacity is larger. Thats why you can now fit 16GB of memory in some Power Macs and 2.5 GB in the new iMacs. I've never seen DDR available in 2GB sticks, but they are available in DDR2.
 
where are you guys seeing what apple has the memory clocked at? I only see that it is DDR2 PC4200 which PC4200 if you look at the new iMacs is clocked at 533mhz. I don't know whwere you guys are getting that it is only 333 that would make now sense to underclock it, even if it didn't use the bandwith. I mean it should be faster memory. Just not sure if the PB is taking advantage of it with the chip in it now.

The 12" PB didn't see a memory upgrade so maybe that is why you are thinking it is running 333mhz cause that is what the 12" is running at.

The 15" and 17" PB have the PC4200 DDR2 so that means they should be clocked at 533mhz.
 
crazyeyes said:
where are you guys seeing what apple has the memory clocked at? I only see that it is DDR2 PC4200 which PC4200 if you look at the new iMacs is clocked at 533mhz. I don't know whwere you guys are getting that it is only 333 that would make now sense to underclock it, even if it didn't use the bandwith. I mean it should be faster memory. Just not sure if the PB is taking advantage of it with the chip in it now.

The 12" PB didn't see a memory upgrade so maybe that is why you are thinking it is running 333mhz cause that is what the 12" is running at.

The 15" and 17" PB have the PC4200 DDR2 so that means they should be clocked at 533mhz.

Unfortunately, it's specified on the Tech Specs.
 
ahh i see i don't understand why apple would do that if you were to buy aftermarket memory that runs PC4200 it would run at 533mhz. I mean it is capable of running at faster speeds and the memory in the computer is capable of it as well it is just that apple has chosen to underclock the memory.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.