Author: Anthony Martini
Date: 10:22:42 01/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2003 at 07:02:44, Peter Kasinski wrote:
>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
Yes, I would definately think it would be impeded by DDR today. Memory
bandwidth is the biggest bottleneck in thruput today - even more than processor
speed. If I had a Dell dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, I would want 1066 RDRAM instead of
DDR. However, I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a system. One could get a
new computer ever 2 years, instead of 4 for that price (which, I personally do)-
esp. w/the new 64-bit processors on the horizon...
-,
Anthony
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.