DDR vs. RDRAM


jeffberg

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2001
36
0
Look at this this way, Intel started making the Pentium 4 compatible with DDR SDRAM why? because it is way more bang for your buck and now that both AMD and Intel use DDR RD has stopped, there is nothing happening with it, so DDR will keep getting faster and right now I think it is, but it didn't start out that way.
 

Rajj

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2002
692
0
32° 44' N 117° 10' W
Actually, DDR SDRAM is Faster Than RDRAM!!!

It is like comparing the G4 and the P4!!

DDR Ram runs at a slower clock speed(266Mhz or 333Mhz), but like the G4, it sends data thru the bus at huge chunks at 3.3Gb/sec, compared to RDRam's 2.9Gb/sec, @ 800Mhz/1060Mhz and DDR is hell of a lot cheeper:p ;)
 

Beej

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2002
2,139
0
Buffy's bedroom
AFAIK, the only reason Intel ever user Rambus in the first place is because they were locked into a contract with the co that made it. I think it was pitched before DDR, Intel liked what they saw, but DDR actually happened (and was better) than Rambus.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Rambus is EVIL ... and being cleansed in the courts as we speak.

Funny how the P4 and the P4 chipsets which were designed for RDRAM are transitioning over to DDR.

In November 1996, Rambus entered into a development and license contract with Intel. The contract provides for the parties to cooperate in the development of a specification for Direct Rambus next-generation 64 Mbit RDRAMs, which will be targeted at the PC main memory market segment. The contract also calls for Intel to use reasonable best efforts to develop a PC main memory controller designed for use with these RDRAMs. The Company believes that Direct Rambus technology will offer superior bandwidth compared to other solutions for PC main memory applications. However, these RDRAMs and the Intel memory controllers are not scheduled for mass production until 1999, and there can be no assurance that such devices will be successfully developed or that, if developed, will be successful in penetrating the market segment for PC main memory.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by bousozoku


Compared to the price differential, there's not enough of a performance improvement.
for some hard core techies and gamers, they really don't care that much about price

as for techies on a budget, rambus is not a good deal

and for hard core gamers on a budget...wait, there's no such thing:p ;)
 

jadam

macrumors 6502a
Jan 23, 2002
699
1
err RDRAM is a 16bit peace of ****.

DDR ram is a 64bit savior!! soon to be 128bit also :p
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
DDR has so much going for it. In addition to its relative low price compared w/ RD, its fast. Most new DDR equipted Athlon XPs can smoke or at least tie their rated speeds (example: a 1.76 GHz athlon can smoke a 1.8 Ghz P4 w/ Rdram and everthing; it could even smoke a 1.9 or even a 2 ghz)

Also, DDR is starting to phase out RD, even w/ the new 533 MHz system bus of the new P4s and the PC-1066 ram thats appearing. Now I'm starting to see the new P4s paired w/ DDR (maybe because of the lack of PC1066 chips or maybe intel is having second thoughts about Rambus).

Bottom Line: RD RAM IS TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE FOR THE PREFORMANCE!
RD may be faster, but DDR is better and more worth your money and time.

P.S.: All Hail DDR333!!!!
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by G5orbust
DDR has so much going for it. In addition to its relative low price compared w/ RD, its fast. Most new DDR equipted Athlon XPs can smoke or at least tie their rated speeds (example: a 1.76 GHz athlon can smoke a 1.8 Ghz P4 w/ Rdram and everthing; it could even smoke a 1.9 or even a 2 ghz)

Also, DDR is starting to phase out RD, even w/ the new 533 MHz system bus of the new P4s and the PC-1066 ram thats appearing. Now I'm starting to see the new P4s paired w/ DDR (maybe because of the lack of PC1066 chips or maybe intel is having second thoughts about Rambus).

Bottom Line: RD RAM IS TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE FOR THE PREFORMANCE!
RD may be faster, but DDR is better and more worth your money and time.

P.S.: All Hail DDR333!!!!
well put!!!

also, we can say that about ibm taking over the high end macs...actually, i used to hate motorola and love ibm but now i am seeing moto is actually trying now

i was so pissed during that long drought stuck at 500 mhz on the g4...but no drought has happened since and ibm just laid off 15,000 workers or will do so soon as i heard on the news

i have no idea now if apple is better off with moto or with ibm

the last chip at 1.25 ghz does make me feel a little better now even though people want to call the new g4 case hannibal...too funny, but kind of cute like the flower power machine was (and the stats on the inside were not bad for that imac model...just ask backtothemac...he he):p
 

topicolo

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2002
1,672
0
Ottawa, ON
What I want is DDR-II. It goes up to 1Ghz! think about that. It's like a 1x fsb multiplier if a 1 Ghz G4 mobo supported it.
*drool* They're gonna use it on the NV30 and on the Radeon 9700 next year

Well, I can dream, can't I?
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
hmmm, thats seems like a cool idea. But saying that Apple cant even adopt a full on DDR set up, im a little skeptical that a set up like that would come in the near future.