Hi all, I show this post fro TMF from the Evil Doctor (with whom I often disagree:):
Okay, let me make this perfectly clear for everyone.
Intel does not want DDR to succeed. Intel has no vested interest in seeing DDR
succeed. The people who want DDR to succeed are the ones who can't make
RDRAM successfully (cost effectively), because they didn't want to pay for the
learning curve.
RDRAM has a performance advantage over DDR. Intel has spent billions of dollars to
develop technologies that best use RDRAM. AMD made a big bet on DDR. So did
Micron and Via. It didn't work out. These are some of Intel's biggest competitors and
detractors. Why in the world would Intel step in and bail them out at this time? Why would
Intel stake their future on a technology that has an inferior design?
Oh, yeah, DDR400 will not happen. Not in PC main memory. The technology does not
scale to 400MHz, no matter how fast you make the silicon.
Intel knows what is going to happen to DRAM prices within the year. The margins will
creep back up to 0%, and RDRAM will cost a little more than SDRAM. SDRAM will
cost more than it does now - at some point these guys have to make money somewhere.
At that time, DDR won't be any kind of bargain. DDR requires a 6 layer board and more
pins to achieve the same bandwidth, and it's still slower than RDRAM even then. It also
has higher power consumption, costs as much to make as RDRAM (yes, it's true -
compared to 4-bank RDRAM), and those signal-integrity problems are not going to
magically clear themselves up as you go higher in speed.
Intel is not stupid. They are supporting SDRAM now because of the price point, and they
will support any kind of DDR that is stable and if it makes sense, but DDR seems to have
completely dropped off their "official" memory roadmap. So far, DDR has proven to be
unstable and unreliable. Intel is not, however, going to spend a lot of money improving the
DDR standard so that it works. Let me remind everyone, DDR is not a better
technology than RDRAM. DDR cannot be made into a better technology than
RDRAM. DDR is an attempt to push an old technology one step further before letting it
die a natural death. It's old, and decrepid, and the marketers are pushing it like it's some
young olympian who just won his fifth gold medal.
Take a look at the number of systems that have DDR. Take a look at the number of
systems that have RDRAM. Take a look at the number of systems that contain RDRAM
that have been recalled (answer: none).
No, Intel is not working on a 400MHz version of DDR so they screw Rambus and get
back in the good graces of AMD. Intel is not looking to make a technology that really
helps out Micron because they like them so much, and to hell with all this stuff about
"performance". Intel is not looking to give a helping hand to AMD or Via, or any of its
other competitors, who happen to still be stuck in DDR land without knowing how to get
out.
When you hear this kind of thing, first consider the source (none mentioned). Second, use
common sense - is this something that Intel would consider doing, and what benefit would
they gain? What might it cost them to go this route? Does it get them any competitive
advantage? Is this something that would help or hinder their competitors?
i845, SDRAM, makes sense right now. It allows Intel to target a price-point that is just a
bit lower than they could otherwise, allowing them to phase out P3 a little earlier. Keeping
P3 around aids AMD, since their processors run faster on P3 optimized code than a P3
does. A year from now (if not sooner), it will be phased out because it will suck. DDR will
also continue to suck, as it has always sucked and as it sucks now, and as it will always
continue to suck. Even if someone figures out a way to make DDR not suck, what would
Intel gain by doing this? Would it help AMD? Would it hurt AMD to make them think that
Intel was going to support DDR, when Intel has no intention of doing that?
Things to think about, anyway."
from EvilDrSmith, post nr 45668 on TMF.
boards.fool.com |
