dcsimg
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: DDR Fumbles, RDRAM Scores

  1. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5

    Re: Try to read the article next time!

    Originally posted by Quazar
    Beeblequix

    PC2700 @256 = $71 US
    RDRAM 800 @256 =$70 US
    RDRAM PC800 has been much longer on the market than DDR SDRAM rated at PC2700.

    Like everything else prices tend to be higher when a product/component is being introduced into the market or when the demand is low, as with EDO RAM.

    When the new RDRAM makes its debut into the market, prices for RDRAM will again increase.

    Another, example my nephew has a P4. Therefore, I bought him a 128MB RDRAM module for Christmas. He plugged it in and the system went nuts. Being 14 years of age he calls me almost in tears when his system did not work. So when I started troubleshooting with him, I discovered that he had an 850 board. I recently had to send him another 128MB RDRAM or else he could not use the initial RDRAM I sent him.

    In a SDRAM situation, the 128MB module, alone, would have been sufficient to upgrade his system without issues.



  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    El Carajo
    Posts
    138
    Originally posted by Jeff253
    Why all the bias against RDRAM? It's very good memory, 2 banks gives you 3200 MB/sec worth of bandwidth. While PC2700 use 8 banks to achieve 2664 MB/sec worth of bandwidth at 166 MHz DDR. The problems with RDRAM is that it was ahead of it's time, it's bottlenecked by the 266 MHz FSB on CPUs and it's too expensive to take advantage of it's superior performance.
    I'm too tired to post an remotely understandable reply...I'm gonna sleep some, then do it tomorrow. I wouldn't exactly call it a BIAS....

    Laterz

  3. #18
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    Yes I will admit that I'm biased against RDRAM.

    I am biased against it because buying RDRAM rewards RAMBUS Inc. for their questionable business practices and ethical standards.

    As a technology it has both good and bad points. It has very good bandwidth characteristics coupled with poor latency qualities. Still a multi-channel RDRAM/P4 Northwood solution does perform well. But I don't want one.

    A multi-channel DDR solution will give higher bandwidth at lower latency and is thus a superior solution.

    Dual channel PC800 RAMBUS solution 3.2GB/sec.

    Dual channel PC2100 DDR solution 4.2GB/sec.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm

  4. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5
    Originally posted by Jeff253
    Why all the bias against RDRAM? It's very good memory, 2 banks gives you 3200 MB/sec worth of bandwidth. While PC2700 use 8 banks to achieve 2664 MB/sec worth of bandwidth at 166 MHz DDR. The problems with RDRAM is that it was ahead of it's time, it's bottlenecked by the 266 MHz FSB on CPUs and it's too expensive to take advantage of it's superior performance.
    On my EDO, SDRAM and DDR platforms I basically have 4 banks (0, 1, 2, 3)

    Are you referring to "channels" or "banks," as I've never heard of latency and/or bandwidth increasing with the number of banks or DIMMs. In fact RDRAM takes a latency hit when memory size increases, which explains the dual channel format. That is also the reason, why DDR is more suitable for server use.


  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    El Carajo
    Posts
    138
    Hello, NOW WE CAN POST....

    My honest oppinion concurrs with Rugor's...Rambus tried to become rich off this RAMBUS memory platform, and Intel was whatever enough to provide RAMBUS the means to do it. RAMBUS plainly sucked with the PIII Platforms, it wasn't until the DUAL MEMORY CHANNEL i850 came in that RAMBUS showed some benefits over PC133 or DDR SDRAM. But, this is while using 2 MEMORY CHANNELS, not one. So, I really don't know if DDR needs 8 banks to achieve 2.6GB/sec bandwidth for ONE CHANNEL only...I believe it should be somewhat closer to 2 banks for that, and 4 banks for a DUAL MEMORY CHANNEL to get to the 4.2GB/sec on a PC2100 DDR RAM system...IF you do the math right, it will be ~5.2GB/sec on a DUAL channel PC2700 system...

    I will admit to something, RAMBUS RAM is super fast...Were talking about 800MHz climbing towards 1064MHz soon, and the i850 is a good platform to go with it...But still, its a P4 platform (lets not get into another discussion on this one). When Intel releases the DUAL CHANNEL DDR solution, it will surely out-perform anything on the market, MEMORY wise...Its just too bad that the ATHLON nForce platform can't benefit too much from the use of a Dual DDR Channel, much like PIII can't benefit from DDR...CPU wasn't made for it!

    Another thing that you need to keep in mind...DDR SDRAM comes as the latest form of SDRAM, which is a quite old concept. Remember the PC66 days? Look how far it has come! And I have heard of Quad Data Rate SDRAM somewhere, using one bank 90 out-of-phase in comparison with the other....God, knows where this will take it...

    I won't praise, nor complain much about RAMBUS decision to license its product; again, its their right. This wasn't made by the (forgot the name) conglomerate of SDRAM guys...But the fact is, that Intel made some of us have it as the only option, and that is not very well welcomed, here, and a lot of other places...

    Who knows, maybe RAMBUS learned a thing or too, and maybe something real good will come later on...

  6. #21
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    I used 4.2GB/sec because dual channel PC2100 systems are available now.

    And as an addendum I would also think that a better comparison in price is to compare PC2100 DDR with PC800 RDRAM as they are equivalent products. PC2700 hasn't really come into its own yet.

    256mb PC2100 DDR $53
    256mb PC2700 DDR $72
    256mb PC600 RAMBUS $70
    256mb PC800 RAMBUS $72

    As a final note I can only give one piece of advice: Buy the RAM that fits in your motherboard.

  7. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5
    Originally posted by Rugor
    I used 4.2GB/sec because dual channel PC2100 systems are available now.
    What are some of the platforms that's available with dual channel DDR SDRAM?

    Thanks
    Jerry


  8. #23
    Jeff253,

    People are biased against Rambus (and Intel) because that's what they've been fed. They don't embody independant thought, nor wield any degree of requisite knowledge about the technologies or their particulars except what they've been given by Tom's Hardware and other anti-Rambus zealots.

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    El Carajo
    Posts
    138
    Originally posted by Ranma
    Jeff253,

    People are biased against Rambus (and Intel) because that's what they've been fed. They don't embody independant thought, nor wield any degree of requisite knowledge about the technologies or their particulars except what they've been given by Tom's Hardware and other anti-Rambus zealots.
    EEhem, do not insult us. I really don't appreciate that remark about not having independent thought, I believe the others won't either...And If I may, what degree do you hold to make you any different? Why, enlight us! I am always interested in finding more, especially about things I know little off.

    Biased? I simply think that Intel pushed its market dominance to the point where it was telling US that RAMBUS was the way to go...And made some of us go for it.

    I also wanted to say that DDR has a lot to go. I am not ready to ditch my PIII rig with 512MB PC133 anytime soon.

    Pal, you need a change of attitude...

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    El Carajo
    Posts
    138
    I believe the Dual Channel DDR is available in the Nvidia nForce 440 Chipset for the AMD Athlon. It may have the 4.2GB/s Bandwidth, but the Athlon processor cannot take advantage of both channels, due to processor limitations. This is similar to what happened to the PIII when DDR platforms came out for it, and RAMBUS in PIII platforms too...I believe the P4 is the only processor which takes advantage of Dual Channels...I think the 400MHz FSB has something to do with it, but then again, maybe not. The VIA KT266A Chipset for the AMD AThlons is par to the nForce platform in terms of performance. Maybe they need to wait until a further release of AMD platform. 2 Thumbs up for Intel on that one...


  11. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1
    While Rama's opinion was very strong, I feel some hardware sites tried to crush Rambus before it was given a chance. Intel reacted too slowly to the market, if it does discontinue Rambus it will be throwing away the ptential of dual channel PC1200, if it was going to discontinue support it should have sooner.

    Also, not all Rambus P3 chipsets were rubbish. The I840 was the fastest dual Coppermine chipset ever and extremely stable too.

  12. #27
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    To answer a couple of points brought up earlier:

    Yes the Dual Channel PC2100 solution is the Nvidia Nforce 420 chipset. The reason the P4 performs well with the dual channel RAMBUS architecture is because two PC800 Rambus Channels at 1.6GB/sec each gives the same total bandwidth as a 64 bit GTL+ Bus at 400MHz. It works because the memory and FSB bandwidth are the same.

    As to the idea that hardware sites tried to crush Rambus that's a misreading of the facts. RAMBUS Inc. was engaged in unethical business practices as has been proven in a court of law. The memory type was a poor match for the P3 especially on a price-performance basis. Therefore most hardware sites advised against using RAMBUS in then current systems because it didn't make economic sense.

    Currently it's a viable platform for the P4.

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    32
    As far as the hardware sites trashing Rambus (unfairly?), I would have to agree that there were quite a few of them on that bandwagon.

    But, remember, on most (I'm sure I didn't catch ALL of them) of those sites, Rambus' performance wasn't the issue. If you were to read between the lines, (and those lines were there to read between in most cases) you could see that although Rambus did not perform too well initially, it was only because of the PIII's design. But, the writing was on the wall, and these sites had to admit it. Today, with P4s, Rambus memory performs very well. There are some who would argue that DDR is still the way to go - well, maybe so, but RDRAM at the present definitely holds its own
    performance-wise, and only the most ideological could fault RDRAM's performance. (It's price may be a whole other issue, of course !)

    My problem with Rambus, is with their business practices. Personally, I voted with my consumer dollar against them, and built a DDR system. The courts have basically affirmed what everybody was so furious at Rambus about - that they do not own the patents to SDRAM, yet were trying to collect royalties from everybody who had anything to do with SDRAM. Seems part of their strategy was, even if they could not sell RDRAM, they would just sit back, and profit from the toil of others. Did you know that Rambus had (maybe they still do) more attorneys on its staff than scientific researchers? They were trying to use (bend?) the law into profits for them at the expense of others in the industry. Maybe it's just me, but some of their actions were just SO wrong.

    I would have to give a big nod of respect to the Korean, German, and American RAM manufacturers who stood up and fought them, as opposed to the Japanese, who basically rolled over and agreed to pay royalties on SDRAM to Rambus Inc. If not for those brave souls, would anyone care to guess what memory prices/choices would be now?

    For the DDR zealots, give it a rest! You've been vindicated by the courts. But don't count Rambus out. Their business practices may stink, but RDRAM itself is just fine, and offers a lot of performance potential. It may well be the future. And don't forget, without Rambus around, we would have less competition for our memory dollars, and that is NOT good.


    Peace everyone.
    If some is good, then more is better, and too much is just about right !!

  14. #29
    Member prttybean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    165
    Originally posted by giancarlo_n
    I believe the Dual Channel DDR is available in the Nvidia nForce 440 Chipset for the AMD Athlon. It may have the 4.2GB/s Bandwidth, but the Athlon processor cannot take advantage of both channels, due to processor limitations.
    I believe the problem why the athlon can not take davantage of the bandwith of the nForce chipset is the athlon has a 64bit bus the the memory bus of the nForce chipset is 128bits ie twice as wide as the athlon's bus

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    El Carajo
    Posts
    138
    Originally posted by prttybean


    I believe the problem why the athlon can not take davantage of the bandwith of the nForce chipset is the athlon has a 64bit bus the the memory bus of the nForce chipset is 128bits ie twice as wide as the athlon's bus
    Right!!! That was what I was looking for...Thanks a lot for the Info...In other words: Nvidia wasted their money on the Dual Bank architecture? They made an awesome product, again, they were trying for an unified video and audio, PERFORMANCE solution...Just wished that its Memory Controller could be taken into consideration...

    Regarding Quietstorm's post. I couldn't agree with you more. I believe it was the way the dealed with business that made me, and many ppl, furious...RAMBUS is still the King-of-the-Hill, and it seems that DDR still has some road to travel to catch up. Also, with DDR prices going up, and RAMBUS keeping a bit steadier, the price hole seemed to close up a little.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •