Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 18:17:46 01/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2003 at 05:10:49, Alessandro Damiani 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 > >Which page do you suggest? > >Alessandro Presuming good pages exist? Regarding THG and Anandtech, most games are not good real-world benchmarks (especially at 1600x1200x32-bit), particularly when you're thinking about Chess. Usually the authors do not understand the hardware, but it doesn't really matter because all they do is run a few benchmarks and post results. (I have heard claims that they post intentionally biased results, but that is hearsay that I will not comment on.) The other problem is that authors who -do- know what they're talking about are not immune to factual errors. I read a scathing review of the Pentium 4 around the time it was originally released. The author worked with emulators, and he was rather upset that the shifter was 4-6 clocks instead of the barrel shifter that has been present for more than a decade. He failed to note, however, that 4-6 clocks is the latency and not the throughput. That latency can often be worked around and really is a non-issue for most people. The only real way to get facts is to be skeptical of what you read. Look for sources who understand more than just Quake, read the arguments and rebuttles, check their facts, and form your own opinion. -Matt
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.