Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 04:02:44 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 I tried this: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1615&p=3 Granted, this is from May, but it discusses what the "quad-pumped" 533 bus speed means from the memory perspective. Their conclusion seems to be that unless PC1066 RDRAM is used the tru thruput of the new systems wouldn't be realized. Of course, the DDR-III would alter that assessment. My real question remains: Would a Dell dual Xeon at 2.8 GHz (533) not be _by definition_ impeded by its use of the DDR SDRAM today? Thanks again, PK
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.