Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pbook7777 · Jul 25, 2005, 06:02 PM

Has anyone gotten ahold of/gotten working any of these 2GB so-dimms that were announced a few months back ? I could really use the full 4G in my pbook, it seems to use quite a bit more memory with the 30" attached than it did before. (other that what might be expected obviously.)

ibook_steve · Jul 25, 2005, 08:47 PM

With the current graphic architecture, main memory has absolutely nothing to do with graphics performance. Graphics performance is based on the graphics chip, VRAM, and CPU speed. So something else is using your memory. Soon enough, with PCI Express, main memory will be able to be used as VRAM as it was way back when in the Mac II (IIci, etc.) days. As for 2 GB SO-DIMMs, I do not believe the current chipset can address that much memory in a bank in the portable space, but I'm not sure. In any case, as stated, more memory will not improve graphics performance, just system performance.

Steve

pbook7777 · Jul 25, 2005, 11:51 PM

While that is generally what I expected, I'm guessing that simply the greater screen area leads to most applications running with much larger window areas causing the aggregate memory usage (apps + uiserver) to be significantly larger than the same apps running on a 17" screen. Was never problem on the g5 w/8gb running the same setup. One also tends to just run more stuff with more screen space. I just see it swapping alot more that it used to, don't think vram enters into it at all. Was hoping that since the g5 chipset takes 2gb dimms nicely that the pbook would too.

ibook_steve · Jul 26, 2005, 12:43 AM

Nope. Especially now with even the OS run using the 3d engine, all window data, no matter the size, is stored in VRAM. You are correct about application performance and swapping due to less main memory if lots of apps are running, but drawing the graphics is entirely up to VRAM, the GPU and the CPU. Trust me on this. I worked on some of the design of the graphic hardware architecture at Apple, working with Nvidia and ATI. Why do you think you need the 128 MB VRAM option instead of only 64 MB to drive the 30" display and don't require more than the default 512 MB for main memory? The 128 MB of VRAM is required to store all those pixels and textures. The 512 MB is more than adequate to run the OS and a few applications well without needing to be used to drive the display. The only time main memory would come into play would be when the VRAM is dumped into main memory when the machine is put to sleep.

Steve

Ji Eun · Jul 26, 2005, 03:52 AM

but anyway... 2gb so-dimms? i've never heard of them. anyone?

ibook_steve · Jul 26, 2005, 11:52 AM

Of course they'll be around soon, but they'll start off insanely expensive and hard to find.

Steve

havocidal · Jul 27, 2005, 10:37 AM

yep there are 2GB rams on the market alrdy... but insanely expensive... just like how the 1gb sticks used to be... in fact there ARE 4GB rams on the market... and if im nt wrong they cost 2k per piece... that's some expensive stuff... now imagine tt on a powermac g5... 32GB worth of memory... woootttttt... but it's just that it has yet to hit the mainstream markets... just wait a while more...

Ji Eun · Jul 27, 2005, 10:55 AM

you reckon the ibooks'll be able to handle these.... not that i'm in the market... my 768mb RAM is just fine for now.

bighead · Jul 27, 2005, 05:23 PM

Any non-G5 Macs in existence today will not work with RAM above 2GB. Period. It's a waste of money. You could use (1) 2GB SODIMM, and it might work, but even if it did, the machine wouldn't recognize any RAM in the second slot.

Wah wah waaaaah.

GSixZero · Jul 27, 2005, 06:00 PM

Wouldn't having a 30" display tend to lead to having more programs and bigger files (photoshop, etc) open, thus using more ram? I realize this isn't causation, but more likely correlation.

ibook_steve · Jul 27, 2005, 06:40 PM

As I already stated, window size and the amount of data in a window is not stored in main memory. All window graphical info is stored in the VRAM. But yes, larger files and more open apps would use more main memory.

Steve

mousehouse · Jul 28, 2005, 07:08 AM

are you sure about that? i recall reading Quartz related documents stating that the primairy copy of the window data is in regular RAM, and that unless Core Image and Quartz Extreme are supported and active a lot of work on the window data is actually done using the CPU (and accelerated using AltiVec on a G4) ...

this would lead to increased memory utilization if a large screen is attached.

Andy8 · Jul 28, 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

As I already stated, window size and the amount of data in a window is not stored in main memory. All window graphical info is stored in the VRAM. But yes, larger files and more open apps would use more main memory.

Steve

Steve,

I asked on another thread how my 1GHz 17" PB with 1.5Ghz ram and 64mb vram drive a 23" ACD? Would it be struggling or acceptable for most tasks. Email, Web, Word, excel etc?

iREZ · Jul 28, 2005, 12:11 PM

it should drive a 23" display just fine...my cousins mac mini works just fine when connected to his older (23" plastic bezel) ACD. he also has the same powerbook as you (17" Rev a) and runs his Dell 24" off of it all the time.