@@ Amazing: Intel® XEON QUAD X3360 & 8192MB DDR2 Extreme RAM Only in PCMW Black-Hawk XR5 @@

AMAZING

They are offering an Intel® XEON QUAD X3360 (2.83GHz/45nm/1333MHz/12MB) for only [$575] shipping directly


Also, NOW 8192MB High Speed DDR2 Extreme Performance Memory ( FiRsT 8 GB RAM Laptop on earth ^_^)

Check it here:
http://www.pcmicroworks.com/store/customize.php


ADD:

@@Xtremenotebooks are offering the same Intel® XEON QUAD X3360 for their Xtreme 917-V + * GB RAM
HERE


TipTip

 

You haven't been on Earth for a while I guess.

 

It is the first

TELL me if there is another one ^_^

That is currently here and not to come ^^

 

We've had 8 MB laptops for hmm, a really long time at least.

Secondly, the Dell M6300 and HP 8710W have both been available for a while with 8GB of RAM.

 

It seems I was in PLUTO then ^_^

 

Thanks for the info.
That's really good news for anybody who owns a D901C (me included)!

What is the difference between a Xeon Quad and a Core2 Quad, by the way?
The X3360 has the same specs as the Q9550.
I know that Xeon's are made for the server/workstation market but what are the exact differences?

 

No real difference. No surprise. (Eurocom already announced the same thing)

Supposedly server-class CPUs are using better silicon and have been burned-in to make sure that it can withstand the test of time.

I have an AMD Opteron 180 (dual core) in my D900K (which happened to be the first dual core notebook), its specs are the same as an Athlon X2 4800+.

Its for bragging rights... having a server-class CPU in a notebook.

Nothing new really.... what do expect when a notebook is using a desktop chipset...

... more upgrade options !!!

P.S. For those that want 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR2, get ready to fork out ~$1000 for it.

 

8 MB Ram, wow that´s a lot, glad I only have 4 GB Ram in my XPS M1730 then Nah just kidding, you wrote 8 MB instead of 8 GB

 

Hmm. Sager said they`re not using the Xeon just yet, so PCMW must be really sure about it.

 

more testing goes into a xeon, ecc ram etc, google will tell you..

 

So there must be several companies selling 901Cs with XEONs and 8GB RAM now, Eurocom, PCMW and us....there's not really that much difference between a Q9550 and an X3360 but as today showed us, there is a demand for them, as there is 8GB RAM.

The Q9550/X3360 and Q9450/X3350 are pretty much the same CPU, though the XEONs come from a different batch to the Core 2 Quads. The XEONs have I/OAT support which deals with TCP/IP. This means that the core CPU doesn't have to worry about network overheads so their main proven benefit is in this area.

Some argue that XEONs are better overclockers and run cooler as they come from a different batch to the desktop CPUs but I don't think anyone has done enough testing to confirm this.

Also don't forget that some additional benefits listed for XEONs are to do with server chipsets which the 965 won't support.

 

You know , I laughed so much about this ^_^

Thanks

 

8GB has limitations that everyone should be aware of before paying up the premium, as you are paying 1k + for just 2.x GB not the full 4GB.

Reference: http://download.intel.com/design/motherbd/lt/D5601702US.pdf

page 18 “1.4 System Memory” then it references you to section “2.1.1 Addressable Memory” at page 43

It is the exact same issues we had with the older chipsets that did not support 4GB due to chipset limitations of 4GB addressable MAX. With the p965 it is adjusted to 8GB addressable MAX, so that we can now fully support 4GB but NOT 8GB.

These are some facts others have failed to mention when offering a upgrade such as this. These are limitations everyone should be aware of and should be mentioned.


What the P965 chipset give us over the older 945/925/915 etc, is that it has upgraded from 4GB addressable max(915/925/945) to 8GB addressable max(965). This has then finally allowed us to truly support 4GB of memory vs 2.7GB with the older chipsets. However history is now repeating itself, as the P965 8GB addressable max will not allow us to fully support 8 GB of system memory, as it has 8GB addressable max.

 

Just to test my (mis)understanding, is it fair to say that this is analogous to the issue with Win-XP, 32-bit, with respect to it's inability to see a complete 4GB of installed physical memory because some of the address-space was dedicated to other functions and therefore could not be used to map physical memory?

 

Thanks guys! That's all I wanted to know and it seems that I'll stick with the Core2 Quad's for now since the extra cost of owning a Xeon just for bragging rights is not really worth it for me.

 

@shyster

2 different issues

32bit software limitation is one, regardless of hardware. You can have a 965 chipset, install 4gb of memory or a top of the line server chipset and install 64GB of memory. It will never access over 3.x GB due to it’s a software limitation. It’s just a solid x86(32bit) fact.

Hardware limitation is 2nd, regardless of 32bit / 64bit OS. You will never be able to use the memory if the physical memory is not addressable do to it being taken up by hardware resources.

Look at Microsofts website here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003

Under "More Information" you will see:

 

I was actually just using the WinXP 32-bit limitation as an illustrative analogy, and not as actually being the same issue; in other words, the problem with a 32-bit OS is that it simply cannot address more an about 4GB of memory - there just aren't enough numbers in 32 bits (there are, to be precise, no more than 4,294,967,296 unique integers in any 32-bit address space).

The way I read what you've been saying is, because of the physical structure of the system (i.e., the design limitations), there are only 8GB of cubby-holes that can be addressed, irrespective of how many numbers you have available to you to assign to each physical location, and that some of those 8GB of cubby-holes are used up on system stuff, so no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to connect each and every memory unit in 8GB of memory to a unique cubby-hole on the system.

 

Thanks Justin for the link. I'm curious now to see how much memory would be left for the user using a Linux(x86_64) version. I guess we will have to wait for the first reviews to come out...

 

Well, since it's a hardware limitation like Justin said I don't think Linux or any other OS for that matter is going to make any difference.

@Justin: Will those 8Gb have slower timings than 4Gb due to the increased size or is it the same?
If it is slower than just keeping 4Gb is a no-brainer.

 

Timing depends on the ram module used…

 

I think he means how much in general would be available...

I would guess you'd see ~7.25GB as I believe that's a similar amount of reservation to what we saw in previous chipsets for 4GB (seeing ~3.25)

Just a guess though

 

Will video memory affect it in any shape or form? I'm just curious as next month when the 9800's are going to be out they will offer 1GB per card. Does the Video Ram affect system ram in any shape or form? I know the 1GB only hits its stride when you add in 4X AA and 16X AF at max resoultion i.e. 1920x1200 with these notebooks. But will it be a factor?

 

You will see as much as RAM as it can address: - the video RAM. - other RAM used by the system. But if the system can address more than four GB you will still see four GB of RAM available and be able to have a 1GB video card. Too bad for x86 users though D).

 

ya know.. the im sure this was said but the xeon processor is the same as the 9550 except for a lil more testing and 8 gigs of RAM is just not rele gonna make your life that much more amazing if you already have 4 gigs. I'm not seeing anything special about this except a special little hole in your wallet.

 

Remember, not everyone needs the D901C for gaming,some actually use it as a mobile workstation.
So 8 GB for most of them would be a blessing.

 

i didnt get it, so if i get a 8GB sager and install ubuntu + visa i wont be able to use the entire 8gb ram on any of them ?! with neither the extreme or Q processors?

 

That's right buckaroo.

 

How much will be used?

PL

 

8GB, less the number of address space bytes the system assigns to peripherals and other components, e.g., GPUs (no, the system's not assigning memory to the GPUs, but rather logical addresses that the system uses in order to be able to access the GPU).

Think of it this way; the CPU is a Post-Office homunculus that can only communicate with the rest of the system through little post-office boxes, like these:


In order to communicate with, say, physical RAM byte 1535 then, the CPU has to assign that address-box (the dark one in the pic above) to that particular byte of physical RAM.

However, when that happens, that means that the CPU has one less mail-box that it can assign to any other component, e.g., RAM, GPU, sound card, etc. because the CPU only has access to a finite, limited set of mail-boxes.

Thus, in the real situation, because the address-space of the chipset/CPU used in the D901C, there are only 8GB of logical addresses available in the system's address space that are available for assignment to physical components. Since some of those logical addresses must be assigned to non-RAM components, such as the GPUs, that means that there will always be something less than 8GB worth of logical addresses that can be assigned to the bytes of physical RAM. Thus, no matter how much RAM you manage to stuff into the available slots, you will never be able to communicate with more than 8GB, less peripheral resource addresses, of that RAM.

So, for example, if you have a system with 2 GPUs, each with 512MB of onboard memory, and all of the other components in the system require 256MB of logical address space (I'm just making up a number here, I have no idea how much of an address space peripheral components typically require), then your system will allocate 2 x 512MB, plus 256MB = 1,280MB, or 1.28GB of logical address space that is not available for assignment to RAM, meaning that you would be able to access no more than 6.72GB of the total of 8GB of physical RAM that you had installed in the system.