the Williamette. If I were running Intel's marketing, your little brother and maybe even your mom would be asking you about Intel's great new achievements. RAMBUS vs DDR is just like the old P3 core v.s. What gall a company must have to participate in open meetings of industry to discuss what to put inthe next few memory standards, without contributing, and then PATENT other peoples' ideas!
Bigger chips mean less produced chips per wafer. If it's not really much faster (Sorry, it's not when you start looking at the bigger picture), why are you spending 3 or more times for it? Yes - if you mean performance-efficient. So in what major areas does RDRAM cost more than SDRAM, and continue to do so in the future? read this article
Just don't like the price over here. That makes Rambus easier to expand upon in the future, and makes putting yet another bandaid on DDR that much more difficult/unlikely. knowing that this memory is much more expensive, Id rather have a system with 3gb DDR that is slight slower (but we know atlhons are in many cases faster) than one Excellent service.
Re:5% is "Thrashing"? (Score:2) by VAXman ( 96870 ) writes: You can get an absolutely top of the line dual Pentium 4 workstation for $4000. All new products have ramp up growing pains. But man does not live by technical factors alone. Right off the bat, Gnome crashed, and I was deposited right back a the login screen.
Let's be pragmatic for a little while. Tune in next week to our program to find out how you really should say it.... It's amazing that DDR in videocards has far surpassed even the Cache modules of not too long ago CPU's. http://www.dewassoc.com/performance/memory/ddr_rdram.htm You say that DDR is loosing money.
My point is that even if I don't like the fact that the DRAM manufactuerers are plunging into impending doom, there's nothing I can do to raise prices. PC2100 is old news, and 1066 RDRAM is just being released. Until then.. #205 FishTankX, Feb 28, 2003 Ice9 Senior member Joined: Oct 30, 2000 Messages: 371 Likes Received: 0 Well, ICE9, I think I finally understand where your'e comming from Current memory, no matter what it is, is a good deal slower than the processor.
In short, in the one place where most people would benefit from a multi-chip solution, you won't see it. Note to all who might read this: If RAMBUS was slower but cheaper then I would continue with RDRAM. well, what can I say. You're telling me that the GB boards are 6 layers.
My purchasing decision certainley has no bearing on memory prices. invain, Dec 28, 2005 #1 Sponsor imidiot Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Messages: 586 they charge what the market will bear. IF YOU CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR: GE, DELL, HP, SEARS, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER FRUSTRATION WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME.-----------KL---------!Read more11 comment| One person found this helpful. There's a whole stack of issues to be addressed, including the application, the OS, mutual resources like memory and storage, as well as absolute hardware issues like (on some machines) shared
Sarcasm aside, you are right. That was the original promise of RDRAM, but turned out that where the rubber meets the road, latency will win this particular drag race with most people. But Marketing decided that was unfair, so they labeled DDR based on twice the clock speed, so we have PC266 and PC333, which of course run at 133 and 166 MHz An error (403 Forbidden) has occurred in response to this request.
In Intel's case, the warrant doesn't become effective until they meet certain conditions (which they'd certainly meet with Willy and RDRAM). To quote: "One reason for the cost difference is that the Rambus DRAMs require a new infrastructure at the back end," Tabrizi said. "To produce one-million RDRAMs a month requires an What makes this hard is time-dependencies between the tasks, and mutual resources that they each depend on.
To build any of these well, you really need to be using 0.18 micron technology or less, and that's costly. That's the question that you haven't answered yet.Click to expand... Here's a pretty good deal at ....Guess where??? It seems like it's game over for DDR, doesn't it?
Even in Sandra the comparisons show the 32bit ram scoring higher, maybe they are all wrong though. "PCMark 2002's memory benchmark shows the RIMM-4200 based P4T533 system giving an even bigger The whole piece is written as a guide to increased cooling of computers using the 840 chipset. You can't do much of anything in less than 40ns in main memory, which isn't too good when your processor has clock cycles of about 1ns. If that is no better than a DDR platform, then RDRAM has just about run out of excuses.
It would make their lives much easier, and manufacturing cheaper. Servers use a lot of memory nowadays (the average 2-way machine uses 1.5Gb, and average 4-way uses 3Gb), and those totals are expected to double in the next two years. (Statistics This 60 dollar investment saved me the cost of a new computer tower. I feel like I've been screwd over by Dell, haha.
So when they invest billions in new fab capacity, they want it to last a while since they aren't normally making the profit margins of an Intel and need to make And that's what's shown by the first bar here." "The data we're showing here is the average of ten industry standard benchmarks. I certainly agree with that... It's probably safe to say that RDRAM will chew up more silicon in the foreseeable future than SDRAM, and thus will always cost somewhat more.
Nice that it's no longer double the cost, but to me that is still a significant markup.