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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (61167)	10/30/2001 2:19:27 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 275872

Tony Re..Also, why do you expect Intel's DDR implementation to be faster than Via's? Because Intel normally beats third parties in chipset related performance?<<<<<<<<< I think Dale is saying Via's was that much faster than Intels 850. I thought I saw a review by Anand when Via introduced their chipset, where the Via came close to the 850 with 800 rambus; not beat it by 20%. I will try to find it.

To: Tony Viola who wrote (61167)	10/30/2001 2:59:13 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tony Re <<<<<<Via's unlicensed DDR chipset is much faster than P4 with DRDRAM, is it latency that gets most of the performance improvement? <<<<<<<< I found Anands article here http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1518 A couple of interesting tibits. Third, Intel’s i845-D (Brookdale with DDR SDRAM support) is still on track to be introduced in the first quarter of 2002. In spite of sluggish Pentium 4 sales Intel has not pulled the 845-D in any closer. Even if they did, with only DDR200 (PC1600) SDRAM support the i845-D wouldn’t offer that much of an advantage over the regular i845 with PC133 SDRAM. Intel has yet to qualify DDR266 (PC2100) for use with their platforms. <<<<<<< For the most part, the P4X266 is a viable alternative to the i850. It is only under games that you lose a significant amount of performance and even then only at lower, non-video bottlenecked resolutions. VIA's pricing on the chipset should be comparable to what they are selling the KT266 for, meaning that we should be able to see P4X266 based boards at or above KT266 price levels. <<<<<

To: Tony Viola who wrote (61167)	10/30/2001 5:52:42 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 275872

>Dale, do you have a link to a PC World article that goes into detail on this?< The article is in the hard copy PC World Magazine, November, 2001. Their results were: PC WorldBench 2000 PC133 SDRAM - 208 PC800 RDRAM - 219 PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 230 This works out to about a 5.3% increase for PC800 over PC133 and about a 10.6% increase for PC2100 over PC800. MusicMatch PC133 SDRAM 64 PC800 RDRAM 63 PC2100 DDR SDRAM 62 This works out to about a 1.5% improvement for PC800 versus PC133 and about a 3% improvement for PC2100 versus PC133. Photoshop 5.5 PC133 SDRAM 107 PC800 RDRDAM 102 PC2100 DDR SDRAM 102 This works out to about the same 5% increase for PC800 versus PC133 as for PC2100 versus PC133 AutoCAD 2000 PC133 SDRAM 614 PC800 RDRAM 541 PC2100 DDR SDRAM 438 This is the best performance yet for DDR SDRAM with PC2100 yielding about 40% higher performance than PC133 while PC800 yields only about 14% higher performance than PC133. >If P4 with Via's unlicensed DDR chipset is much faster than P4 with DRDRAM, is it latency that gets most of the performance improvement?< Yes, in fact latency is such huge performance factor that it is actually somewhat offset by the higher bandwidth of DRDRAM. >Also, why do you expect Intel's DDR implementation to be faster than Via's? Because Intel normally beats third parties in chipset related performance?< Yes, historically Intel has always provided higher performance than Via, so there is littel reason the anticipate any other situation with Intel's DDR implementation than Via's.