Dan3,
I certainly do love the way you pit two tables, not equivalently measured, and draw large conclusions.
As an example you state DDR only comes single channel, RDRAM double channel. Yes, but that is because dual channel DDR requires 132 line traces plus control and addressing traces to function. DDR2100 had trouble with just the 66 line traces. Far too much EMI. RDRAM can do dual channels because it only taks 66 total line traces, of which only 60 are high speed.
Of great note to engineers, once you exceed 50 traces changing state in a nanosecond you begin to experience very substantial EMI interference. 50 trace signals is far less than even 1/2 of the line traces you would need in this theoretial dual channel DDR. A very sloppy mess with enormous system costs to manage.
But hey, we can all draw our own conclusions. So, you'd prefer to play the latest quake on SDRAM? Or perhaps purchase a PlayStation II with SDRAM? Or perhaps buy your engineers SDRAM computers?
Tinker
FYI here are two articles that are well done and balanced, perhaps have a peak:
hardwarecentral.com
anandtech.com
BTW, have you actually read Samsung's white paper on RDRAM. As an example, on page 7 of their white paper "although the core used in RDRAMs are high bandwidth they also have low latency, comparable to the fastest SDRAMs."
The paper also goes on about superior bandwidth, and not just peak, but sustainable bandwidth, granularity, power management.
While your at it you might want to check out Toshiba's white paper in regard, available on their site.
Also, while your at it, you might want to check out some of the latest benchmarks. Hard to not notice them, but P4, on the latest benchmarking software, not the legacy stuff, surpassed the competition by a wide margin. Not like the first two DDR releases with what, 5-10% performance gains over SDRAM?
But here is a link of interest in regard. eetimes.com
It is the type of stuff the P4 was made for. It is not intended to run simple word processing stuff any better than SDRAM systems. In fact, there is no noticeable difference. The differences become enormous as bandwidth requirements go up. But lets ignore simple facts like that as we are running a CAD program.
As Nightbird (is that you Bilow, I don't know but just been told) has indicated, certainly I don't do this full-time. Just every few days I'll drop by to see how the misinformation campaign is coming along. If SDRAM 100 can be considered faster than RDRAM "just because it is" it is working very well indeed.
Again, Bilow never answered my formally asked question regarding any successful mass-market DDR product, with DDR as main memory on the desktop. Still not answering the question? Let me know when you can.
Again, those who say DDR is the better technology, first it was AMD's release, then hope was laid in VIA's lap, didn't deliver. Now all eyes are on Intel and their one, I repeat one announced DDR chip the 845. Not for delivery until sometime in 2002. No other desktop DDR chips on the roadmap. But most certainly this chip will be the end of RDRAM as any hope of being a dominant standard.
Hmmm, if DDR were in as many systems as RDRAM and all over Intel's future road-map, yet there was this one chip, this 845, which may or may not come out in full force in early 2002, you'd call me crazy to say that Intel will go and RDRAM is the future. Well, whatever. Perspective I guess.
Hmmm, what did Micron state about DDR in Oct of 1999:
“we are essentially ready to turn on the switch and start turning these things {DDR} out…these chips are not yet stable at 133 Mhz…we expect to have new silicon any day which should eliminate most of these problems…{We’ve had some problems with core logic on these systems and we’d prefer not to enter that market ourselves} were a memory company, but if we have to we will produce the chips ourselves.
Hmmm, then in 2001 VIA did what with DDR:
anandtech.com :
“This brings us to the issue of what to do today. If anything, you should still stay away from the KT266, the platform is simply not mature enough. Even if you are brave enough to try removing and soldering resistors, you should never settle for a system that is sub par in terms of stability. What good is performance if you have to reboot your system all the time?
Without a doubt, the KT266 platforms will improve, but it may take a little while. Remember how long it took for the Apollo Pro 133A motherboards to finally mature? Hopefully it won't take that long for KT266 boards, but we still cannot recommend that you purchase any of the currently available KT266 boards. Not until we can see some more mature stability and performance figures without having to use beta BIOSes and solder resistors.
On a more specific level, what is MSI going to do about all of the users that don't have the "right board" when it comes to their K7T266 Pros? We will be in touch with them this week, hopefully they won't just hand everyone a soldering iron and some instructions.;)”
The more things change, the more the stay the same. DDR promises, and promises, RDRAM delivers working, mass-market systems. Systems that far from being stuck as a high-end niche and gaining maybe 1-2% marketshare as has been often cited and predicted, but systems that can be found as low as the $1000 price point, and marketshare that may hit 10-12% this year alone. This in a computer market that is as depressed as it has ever been.
Of course, then again the argument use to be that RDRAM was too expensive. Far too expensive. Of course now RDRAM is too expensive, just cheaper than that cheap SDRAM was one year ago.
What I keep seeing is RDRAM actually over-delivering in both the price and performance that was predicted for it.
But, back to your misinformation campaign. |
