Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 02:10:49 01/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2003 at 03:20:55, Matt Taylor wrote: >On January 02, 2003 at 22:48:24, Anthony Martini wrote: > >>On January 02, 2003 at 16:48:15, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>>The thing is that RDRAM is in hardware purgatory. Rambus pretty much managed to >>>piss each and every company involved in computer motherboards off. The current >>>situation is that Intel is going with DDR400 memory. The situation may change in >>>the future. But currently they are fading fast. And RDRAM isn't all sunshine and >>>roses either. >>> >>>MvH Dan Andersson >> >> Dan is right, Rambus has pissed a lot of people off... RDRAM 1066 is the >>fastest memory out there (DDR2 is on the horizon), but it is more expensive and >>requires a more expensive motherboard... I was online in OCT this year looking >>for computers, and at the DELL Factory Outlet they were showing systems w/RDRAM >>1066... In all tests that I know of, RDRAM is faster, but most OEM's are >>currently using DDR... >> >> Try this site--> http://www.tomshardware.com/ >> >> -, >> Anthony > >There is no universally faster solution. It always depends on what you are >doing. RDRAM is really nice when you have a lot of serial computation to do. >DDR-II will obsolete RDRAM as they will then have the same bandwidth. DDR-III is >also planned. > >I would not be suprised if Tom's Hardware claimed that DDR SDRAM is slower than >regular SDRAM. I do remember some of the comparisons they made between RDRAM and >DDR SDRAM in the beginning, and I was thoroughly unimpressed. Poor technique, >lack of facts, etc. Better to look for a site where the author knows what he is >talking about. > >-Matt Which page do you suggest? Alessandro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.