Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Green who wrote (78874)	10/2/2001 1:33:00 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

When the "wrong" RAM is right By Bill O'Brien September 25, 2001 The battle cries are easy to remember if not a bit simplistic: "SDRAM good! RDRAM bad!" They reflect the basic conflict between proponents of double data rate (DDR) SDRAM versus RDRAM (which is also a double date rate memory product) when used with Intel Pentium 4-powered computers. Hammering out the pros and cons of the arguments is still difficult on anything but a theoretical anvil, because while we are "up to here" in Pentium 4 RDRAM systems, we've yet to see the first use of DDR SDRAM with a Pentium 4. There is, however, some anecdotal data available from a 2GHz Pentium 4 system recently tested by ZDNet Labs that was equipped with Intel's 845 chipset and 256MB of single data rate (SDR) SDRAM. Of the first batch of 2GHz Pentium 4/RDRAM systems that have come through ZDNet Labs so far, all have had Windows ME installed. When asked why, one vendor replied, "We configured it with Windows ME because it is geared more towards gamers and multimedia applications." This is in line with Intel's desire to mainstream the Pentium 4. The one 2GHz Pentium 4/SDR SDRAM system that followed the initial batch had Windows 2000 installed. Windows 2000, the mantra goes, is for business. It also typically produces anywhere from a 6 percent to a roughly a 10 percent higher test score, depending on the tests. (To see which tests are performed and what they test, check here. Given all of the bad press Intel has received about the poor performance expected from its SDR-only 845 chipset, a strong showing would be a great boost. And is it strong! The SDR system produced scores virtually identical to the average posted by the RDRAM computers across the three suites of business productivity tests. This would have been an amazing accomplishment after Intel's claims of the inherent superiority of RDRAM were it not for the added muscle of Windows 2000. The SDRAM system's test scores plummeted like a rock when it came to Direct3D, OpenGL and MPEG encoding performance, with results ranging from 20 to 63 percent lower depending on the test. Performance differences between Windows 2000 and ME are not the culprits here. The RDRAM computer had a top-of-the-line nVidia GeForce3 graphics card while the SDRAM Pentium 4 system was cobbled with a last-generation GeForce2 MX--a surprising inclusion given the processor-and it will certainly keep the system out of the hands of gamers who have a narcotic craving for 3D performance. What does that have to do with the IT professional? It suggests that there could be some manipulation of the configuration aimed at making you believe that the now-generation of SDR Pentium 4 systems will deliver what you want--strong business performance with limited gaming capability--and that there's no need, and therefore certainly no desire, to wait for DDR SDRAM to hit the scene. Lies, lies, and damn lies, but it isn't a vast conspiracy, just business as usual. When you have something to sell, you dust it off and dress it up so it looks its best to those who are expected to buy it. But do you buy it? If the transition from SDR SDRAM to DDR SDRAM on AMD Athlon systems is any indicator, DDR on a Pentium 4 should provide the same performance boost that switching from Windows ME to Windows 2000 did in the systems above. That would save you the extra cost of Windows 2000. Throw in a (cheap) last-generation graphics card to discourage gaming, and, even though RDRAM pricing has been on the decline, you'll have created a computer with business performance that's the same if not slightly better than an RDRAM system that's still priced significantly lower. If that doesn't give you reason enough not to buy into obsolescence now, then consider that, at current pricing, 256MB of RDRAM costs $136 more than 256MB of SDR SDRAM, while the added performance of 256MB of DDR SDRAM will cost only about $1.80 extra. Bill O'Brien is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to CNET and ZDNet. He writes Tech Update's weekly