×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Wakes Up To DDR-SDRAM

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the finally-moving-forward dept.

Intel 156

jandrese writes "According to Cnet, Intel is finally getting around to supporting DDR SDRAM in their P4 chipsets. This is a good move on Intel's part, as they need to bring the cost of their P4 based systems down to compete with AMD, and moving away from Rambus is a good start."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

156 comments

No more Rambus! (1)

digital_freedom (453387) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696163)

Finally, I can put some cheaper memory into my Intel rig.

Re:No more Rambus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696211)

...because of course this announcement is causing your motherboard to warp as we speak to facilitate DDR memory.

Re:No more Rambus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696259)

Talk about a lame message just to get fp....RUN FOREST RUN! TYPE FOREST TYPE!

DDR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696164)

Too bad the Berlin Wall fell 12 years ago. Oh, and fp.

humans rule (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696165)

dolphins can suck it

Re:humans rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696585)

Tell me where you live, I only want to be your friend, Human.

Ah, DDR-SDRAM! (2, Funny)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696167)

There's nothing like waking up in the morning to a nice, hot cup of decaf DDR-SDRAM!

*slurp* *CRUNCH* AARRGHH!! *bleed profusely*

*reads the rest of the story*

Ah, shit.

YES!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696168)

DDR Rules! LISP SUCKS!

first post!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696176)

first post! or it will probably end up being second because of that retarded you have to wait 20 seconds to post crap. why is that there anyways? then there is the even more retarded 2 minutes between posts

Isn't it too late to worry about this? (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696178)

Seriously when RAMBUS was 10x the price of SDRAM it seriously hurt, but now that RAMBUS is getting close to comparable, I don't see what the point is. In my neck of the woods PC-800 RDRAM goes for about 30% more than PC2100 DDR, which really isn't that much (and dual channel RDRAM is the fastest RAM platform out there). Given that the P4s one redeeming factor is that with RDRAM it has a serious memory advantage, I really don't see what Intel is thinking: Put a P4 with DDR DRAM and it'll get clobbered even more.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696243)

Maybe the price is down because demand isn't so tight, but try and put RDRAM in every new Intel system, and whammo, outrageous prices again.

Intel has to go where the supply is, and RDRAM isn't it.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (2)

JesseL (107722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696260)

I don't think this is to replace their RDRAM chipsets, but instead their "bargain" PC133 SDRAM chipsets (which I imagine are seriously choked).

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (3, Interesting)

$carab (464226) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696464)

Interesting Point, but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM right now. However, once the Northwood gets released in a few months, OEMs may move to DDR because of the sheer volume of DDR that is being used. DDR RAM, however is still more expensive; Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM).

In terms of high end Intel systems, DDR just isn't that way to go. A couple of months ago, when Intel got to 2GHz, they were beasting on similar Athlon systems. But now, AMD has gone on a tear, heavily ramping up their Palomino core. A 1.9 XP w/ DDR beats a 2GHz P4 w/ PC800 RDRAM in every category except for memory bandwith...If the Intel was using DDR as well, the Xp's margin of victory will be even greater. The P4 relies on fast, fast memory. Give a P4 slow memory, and it will freeze (P4 and SDRAM is a horrid combo). Since RAMBUS will soon be releasing pumped 133 MHz bus memory, I think this is the memory that will help Intel more than DDR. Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle. I think that if Intel cuts memory performance to reduce price, they are losing their ONLY advantage over AMD systems.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (1, Interesting)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696660)

"Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM). "

Please don't tell me you are seriously basing your opinions on the above! You are bitching about a $20 difference in RAM!!!!????!! At one time 2MB RAM cost $2000! 2MB to 4MB was thousands of dollars, yet you complain about $20? Yes, I know that everything is cheaper now, but you have zero perspective on value.

"but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM" - ah, there was a point were RAM was too expensive to replace your floppy drvie. Again, this is dated but don't bitch because you can't buy that "extra juicy" gum instead of the "regular juicy" gum; we're talking 3-4 magnitudes of difference here.

Another OT topic-
"Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle." I guess Apple should just pack it in?

It's nearly painful to watch these youngins complain about spending an extra $20 on memory!!

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (5, Insightful)

Cloud 9 (42467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696262)

(and dual channel RDRAM is the fastest RAM platform out there).

Speed isn't everything... RDRAM has a great deal more latency than DDR. In many cases, RDRAM performs significantly worse than even SDRAM.

Besides that, there's the evil factor, considering Rambus believed more in the policy of suing for royalties as a revenue model instead of producing and selling a decent product.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696376)

If SDRAM is challenging RDRAM with a cpu that can make use of much higher bandwidth RDRAM offers, I'd rather blame the software. It would mean that (pick any two or all three) data access is essentially random, in very small chunks or alignment is bad. Otherwise hardware prefetch (helps little on SDRAM) or bandwidth for could compansate for it. Few apps have to use such an access pattern, it is usually programmer's laziness. There is no excuse for bad alignment except in extremly tight memory, byte or word size data condition.

hm.. (2, Interesting)

Axe (11122) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696471)

..you seriously think that for a majority of applications people have any clue on how to access memory? People write Visual Basic and Java..

Actually - fitting the data you use into L2 cache is much more important IMO.. I have seen factor of 3 improvements in some of my code.. Local alignment (UNder 4k blocks) matters less from my benchmarks..

Re:hm.. (1)

$carab (464226) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696497)

People write Visual Basic and Java? What?

I use Java to play Pogo games and "Shock the Monkey". I haven't seen Visual Basic in a while; It is not robust at all.

L2 cache is very important, and Intel's new chip will have increased cache. In the classic (slot)Athlons, the L2 ran at a third the speed of the chip, but nowadays, with these newfangled modern procs, L2 has gained in importance, running at full speed...But, then again, the Celerons and Durons have hacked, smaller, L2s...

Re:hm.. (2)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696630)

People writing JVM's understand about memory alignment though. Anyway, IIRC the memory alignment hassles on RDRAM are about getting the structures to fit in 128 byte chunks because that's the minimum amount that can be requested from RDRAM.

Or something like that.

Dave

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (2, Insightful)

lazyslackertim (518733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696659)

Come on. The vast majority of apps don't need high bandwidth memory access. Most are busy spinning cycles waiting for user input. If you are finding you are getting poor memory performance, chances are you are running a lot of apps and the context switching is making your cache nearly useless. This is also where lower latency memory helps.

The few programs which might be blocking due to insufficient memory bandwidth (databases, games with large/many textures and the like) often do have the critical pieces tuned for cache performance.

Claiming that all apps should be tuned for optimal memory access is just silly. You do it where it's easy or where it increases performance significantly. Any more and its just a waste of time and money.

Before blaming things on lazy programmers remember that developer time isn't cheap. If I routinely get things done in one day and you take five days but get 5% better performance, who do you think is getting cut next time there are layoffs?

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (3, Informative)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696784)

My comments were only applicable to programs that stress memory subsystem, otherwise you won't see much of a difference between sdram and rdram anyway. So I didn't (at least didn't intend to) claim that all (even most) apps should be tuned for optimal memory performance.

I don't agree with you comment about context switching emphasising latency. Context switching takes doesn't happen frequently, time slices are too long from a cpu perspective (linux defaults to 10ms, I guess that corresponds to ten million or so cycles.) Contexts are loaded in burst rates so latency would have little effect on overall performance. Offcourse it might be that context switching occurs more frequently because programs are releasing their time slices, but that would mean you don't need performance either since your processes are idle. A busy process still gets its ten million cycles, wasting a tiny percentage on context switching - high latency or not.

Its almost 4am here, I'd better sleep now.

DDR has better latency (3, Interesting)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696292)

And it is latency that usually counts, peak transfer rate is not sustainable anyway. A dual channel DDR-SDRAM platform would be faster than dual channel RDRAM platform, single channel ddrs are already competing with dual channel rdrams. With 166*2MHz DDRs on the horizon, I think it is a very sensible solution.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (2)

mwalker (66677) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696425)

but now that RAMBUS is getting close to comparable, I don't see what the point is.

The point, in my opinion, is that Rambus has too high of a lawyer-to-engineer ratio for my tastes. I prefer a company that chooses innovation over litigation because I have a lot more faith in their product down the road.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696599)

This isn't about price.
It's about Intel failing to grab more control of the technology that makes up a PC.
And that IS a GOOD thing.
I've got nothing against Intel.
But monopolies usually suck for everyone but the monopolist.

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (1)

ryusen (245792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696649)

also consider that ddr is untested (well on th eopen market) with p4s... we don't know if it will work well at all. ddr wont give as high a bandwidth as dual channel rd-ram... will that small amount less be a bottleneck? who knows for now.. i say wait and see and then judge if the maybe $100 you save is worth it

of course dual channel ddr-sdram... gah... drool..

Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696705)

of course dual channel ddr-sdram... gah... drool..

Isn't the nforce dual channel DDR? I know I was seriously excited about it, but rather underwhelmed when the actual numbers came out. Then again nvidia has a funny way of doing that again and again: Releasing something with subpar numbers to get the moaners and whiners yabbling (in a way they'll soon regret), and to lower expectations, and then coming out with a final product that blows people away.

Linux (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696179)

Is there a Linux utility to know the RAM manufacturer, serial number, and other useful information ?

h0t d4mn!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696184)

3y3 g0t fr157 p507 b1zn1tch3zzz!!

linux r00lz, m1cr0s3rf dr00lz!!

w00t!

moron (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696396)

not even close....

Unfortunate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696186)

Rambus is a superior technology, this is what made the P4 systems excel in the memory benchmarks. Now the p4's don't have anything to make them stand out, except for their name.

Re:Unfortunate (2)

spiro_killglance (121572) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696646)


No dual channel Rambus, is what what give the
P4 its bandwidth advantage. But as Nvidia's
Nforce shows dual channel DDR is quite possible,
and gives even more bandwidth. Ram module
for Ram module, DDR has a high bandwidth and
is cheap.

Hey intel, here's a good idea to LOWER the cost (2, Insightful)

tcc (140386) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696187)

Put your CPU to the same pricing that AMD is doing, do an equivalent $/mflop, you'll notice how much rambus memory isn't the biggest chunk of the pie unless you go to 1GB and above.

Oh, that would chunk in your profits... right :), better Rambust than you... Oh well... if at LEAST one of you two suffer, I'll live with that :)

Re:Hey intel, here's a good idea to LOWER the cost (-1)

Allah_Spork (524500) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696699)

You fucking geeks are all the same. You 'don't like' a company, so fuck it. It must go away, since your nigger-poor ass can't afford their products.

FUCK YOU NIGGER GEEK

first post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696192)

first post!

Propritary... (1)

The Great Wakka (319389) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696197)

Intel + Propriataryness
Archtecture: Not yet. Still need to reveal how this (P4) works.

Names: No. Pentium(tm)

RAM: Yay! A victory!

Intel still has a way to go, but is definitly a good start.
No comments about spelling/grammer, please.

Re:Propritary... (-1)

Allah_Spork (524500) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696738)

You filthy cockwhore. Name me one open-source hardware manufacturer? ALL hardware is proprietary, fucko.

FUCK YOU NIGGER GEEK

Patents kill your tech off! (2, Interesting)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696202)

The patent drove the cost of DDR RAM up so much relative to competing technologies that the tech died. Perhaps this will be a lesson for other companies that want to patent something in a world where there are alternatives.

I wanted to illustrate the similarities between this and Sony's patent related to Beta videocasette tapes, but it would have been sure to result in a flamewar.

Re:Patents kill your tech off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696268)

You mean RDRAM.

Re:Patents kill your tech off! (4, Interesting)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696379)

The patent drove the cost of DDR RAM up so much relative to competing technologies that the tech died.

I'm hoping you meant to say RDRAM.

Anyway, the patents had nothing to do with the price differences between RDRAM and DDR SDRAM, it was all due to manufacturing costs. I remember a little over a year ago Kingston was bragging about their 30%(!) yield on PC-800 RDRAM chips. When 70+% of your product doesn't pass QA, that's definately going to drive your costs up! Additionally, manufacturers had a fair amount of retooling to do before they could make RDRAM, and high setup costs get passed on to the consumer. As I recall, RDRAM also has a bigger die size than DDR SDRAM (I could easily be wrong, it's been a while since I cared) which would also drive up costs.

In contrast, DDR SDRAM only required modifications to existing SDRAM tooling, and since the SDRAM manufacturing processes had been pretty much perfected already yield was high from the get-go.

Rambus' royalties on RDRAM were actually pretty low. I don't remember what they were, but I remember it being under 3%.

Re:Patents kill your tech off! (1)

Zalgon 26 McGee (101431) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696616)

Rambus' royalties on RDRAM were actually pretty low. I don't remember what they were, but I remember it being under 3%.

With the low margins on all memory types, even 3% is a significant hit.

Re:Patents kill your tech off! (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696419)

The patent drove the cost of DDR RAM up so much relative to competing technologies that the tech died

Correction, the patent did not put up the price of the memory, it is impossible to make any IC without a fist full of patent licenses.

It was the insane greed of the RAMBUS management that has killed RDRAM, they thought they had a monopoly and demanded usurous royalties. It has taken a while to prove that they do not have a monopoly.

I wanted to illustrate the similarities between this and Sony's patent related to Beta videocasette tapes

Sony never attempted to make Betamax a standard. They did not realise that the VCR would be used to show rented tapes. If the VCR had been used only for time shifting the Sony strategy was a rational one. Nobody cares that Tivo and Replay TV use incompatible file formats because the machines are not used for exchange of content. Once people demanded the ability to play pre-recorded tapes the Sony strategy failled.

affordable gaming... (1)

DigitalEntropy (146564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696208)

Now EQ fans can afford the upgrade they're gonna need [penny-arcade.com] to play the latest expansion on their P4s.

SIS 645 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696524)

I'm surprise that no one actually mention the SIS645 chipset. It support bus speed up to 333MHz compared to 266 from VIA. What this means is that it can use PC2700 memory. Check out Tom's hardware for the review. In some area, it even outperforms the 850/RDRAM combination.

By the way, here in asia, RDRAM costs double compared to DDR RAM. That is a big factor!

Intel's not stupid ... (1)

Chip Salzenberg (1124) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696218)

... which makes me wonder why they took SOOO long to finally support DDR with their P4 chipsets.

Re:Intel's not stupid ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696304)

Yes, they are, especially in the last 3 years.
Or maybe it's just that AMD has been incredibly smart.

Re:Intel's not stupid ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696317)

actually *ntel is stupid..they had a contract with RAMBUS to use it exclusively in the P4 until 2002. Then they realized how dumb that was because RDRAM was barely better than SDRAM, and worse than DDR *ntel at twice the cost. Of course the P4 was designed to be married to RDRAM so anything other than that and your performance will suck even more than it already does.

Some updates from the scene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696261)

http://phlow.digimagix.org/scenebusts.htm
http://shell.nic.fi/~parazite/scenebusts11.htm

Re:Some updates from the scene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696400)

http://shell.nic.fi/~parazite/scenebusts14.htm

is newer but does not have the truth about the fbi honeypot site.

Therefore rely more on http://phlow.digimagix.org/scenebusts.htm

THE FBI and EPA DEFINITELY USED ENTRAPMENT. Pure and simple. No other definition.

Plus copyright violation is a civil infraction only unless any type of economic gain can be proven. This does not include theft of bandwidth issues for servers at MIT.

Stealth Introduction? (3, Redundant)

LostScorp88 (249884) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696284)

A "stealth introduction"? Doesn't Intel know about Slashdot? We geeks find out EVERYTHING, and as soon as one of us finds out and submits it to Slashdot, everyone knows. With media the way it is and Slashdot here, a quiet introduction is virtually impossible.

-------------------

remember! (1)

imr (106517) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696297)

And don't ever forget that it was a tentative of coup d'etat over the whole industry of memory and a direct attempt to kill the asian giants.
Whoever planned this, should know leave with honor through a ritual sepuku.

Rambus - now even more obsolete! (3, Interesting)

nyquist_theorem (262542) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696299)

It's unfortunate that Rambus RIMMs are even more obsolete now that Intel's new chipsets are going to DDR. Not that I'll miss them, but its always unfortunate when early adopters get hosed with proprietary hardware. Anyone remember the Socket 4 P60/P66? Drop a ton of money on the new Pentium, and watch while everyone who waited is able to upgrade while you can't. Ditto to those with Asus P4Ts - not only are they hosed on processor options because intel changed pinouts for the new P4s, but now the RAM is obsolete too.

From the article: Intel is planning the stealth introduction of a chipset that will let computer makers connect the Pentium 4 to speedy DDR (double data rate) memory.

Speedy? Isn't DDR-SDRAM slower than RDRAM? Sounds a bit fluffy to me. What they really mean, but don't clearly spell out, is that DDR is faster than the normal SDRAM the 845 supports. But its still no RDRAM. Which I guess everyone here knew anyways.

Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to upgrade it. (I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696374)

My understanding is that Rambus is potentially faster but the current implementation really didn't take advantage of it's features - basically, in the "real world" DDR is a faster technology even though Rambus is faster on paper.

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (4, Troll)

RelliK (4466) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696549)

Speedy? Isn't DDR-SDRAM slower than RDRAM?

False. Comparing just bandwidth:

100MHz SDRAM -> 800MB/s
133MHz SDRAM -> 1064MB/s
100MHz DDR -> 1600MB/s (*)
133MHz DDR -> 2128MB/s (*)
400MHz RDRAM -> 1600MB/s (*)

(*) DDR and Rambus transfer data at both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle, thus doubling the effective bandwidth. Bacause of that they are often reffered to as 200MHz, 266MHz, and 800MHz respectively.

Anyway, the point is that DDR has greater bandwidth than Rambus. On top of that, Rambus has a pathetically high latency. Because of that Pentium 3 systems with PC133 SDRAM outperformed their Rambus counterparts most of the time.
As an aside, Intel decided to "fix" this flaw by making Pentium 4 waste four times as much memory bandwidth as Pentium 3 -- that makes P4 highly sensitive to memory bandwidth. /. linked to a very interesting article discussing the P4 architecture a while ago.

Back to the point, Pentium 4 chipset uses two channels of Rambus memory that work in parallel. That gives it 2 * 1600 = 3200MB/s of bandwidth, which is greater than a single channel of PC2100 DDR (though it still has high latency). Problem is that you need to install memory in pairs (on RIMM for each channel), and each RDRAM channel can have only two memory slots. That means you are only one upgrade away from maxing out your memory. On the contrast, each DDR channel can have up to 4 memory slots and you can upgrade one slot at a time.
Also note that NVidia Nforce does the same thing for Athlons & DDR as the P4 chipset. Of course two channels of DDR have the bandwidth of 4256MB/s).

Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to upgrade it.

I'm so tempted to say "I told you so" -- which I would have if we ever spoke.

(I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)

This is about the stupidest thing I ever heard. It's like claiming that Ford makes unsafe cars because their engines fry when you drain all the oil from them. Try this: remove the heatsink and fan from your P4 and see how long it takes for it to catch fire.

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696680)

Try this: remove the heatsink and fan from your P4 and see how long it takes for it to catch fire.
Tom already did that in the video. Quake slowed down to 1 FPS when the P4 throttled the speed down and nothing burned.

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (1)

ryusen (245792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696687)

not to critisize your post, but i think you are forgtting the chipset itself... i think the memory handling of the chipset might make or break these new boards

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696702)

Try this: remove the heatsink and fan from your P4 and see how long it takes for it to catch fire.

It won't. It will scale back the clock speed until it is running at a safe temperature. You will then have a nice safe P4 running at 200Mhz or so.

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (1)

debiandude (515835) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696554)

Yes, it is true that DDRSDRAM is slower than RAMBUS, but its latency is much lower. For instance, CAS 3 SDRAM @ 150 mhz is actually much slower than CAS 2 SDRAM @ 133 mhz. So when you take DDR Ram at 266 mhz with low CAS 2 latency's its actuall quite powerful. Also to note it that the Intel RAMBUS platform uses dual channel RAMBUS. If Intel were to use dual channel DDR SDRAM (i.e. nForce) then you would have a lower latency and a larger memory bandwith to boot.

Re:Flaming Athlons? (1)

sstamps (39313) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696569)

>Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to
>upgrade it.

Yeah, there are a lot of people in that same situation. All together, they are what drives the creation and marketing of dead-end tech. Uneducated consumers (along with the corporations who exploit them, or innovate through litigation) ultimately ruin the market of good products for everyone else.

>(I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember
>that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)

Nope. I never saw ANY such video. In fact, I SERIOUSLY doubt you did, either. The smoke erupting from the chip in the aforementioned video was not from the CPU itself, but the EXCESSIVE amount of crappy thermal paste left on it when they removed the heat sink. The "fire" that some people say they saw was a reflection of the non-contact thermal probe (which emits an ornage-reddish light).

Even so, how many houses have reportedly burned down from the heat sink falling off? In fact, how many heat sinks have reportedly "fell" off while the machine was running and not being moved around? Hmmmm?

Re:Rambus - now even more obsolete! (2)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696666)

I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)

Dust bunnies don't kill Athlons. Neither does the fan failing, providing you have a motherboard that shuts the system down once the temperature goes too high. In order to kill their Athlon, THG had to run quake and pull both the heatsink and fan off. It only worked because there was nowhere for the heat to go when the processor was at 100%, and locked there, and the temperature rose faster than the sensor was able to detect.

Kinda unlikely to happen in the real world, unless you like playing Quake while your mates pull bits of your PC.

Dave

I Broke it I Bought it! (1, Informative)

artlu (265391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696300)

I recently had a P4 1.4Ghz with 256megs of RDRAM. I fried that processor. How, you ask? By breaking the fan clips and seeing if it would boot without a fan on. (It doesn't, dont run a proc without a fan or other cooling solution, unless u want to waste money).

Anyway, i had to buy a new Motherboard, Proc, but not ram. However, i was sufficiently impressed with the new Athlon XP line. (especially the low cost of the XP 1600+).

Basically, i ended up updating my system to an AMD Athlon XP 1600+, Abit KG7-Raid MoBo, and with 256megs of Crucial PC2100 DDR Sdram at 266mhz. This machine SCREAMS compared to my P4 with DDR, and the processor is the exact same clock frequency. RDRAM is faster in benchmarks, but for me, the price vs. performance for the AMD was unquestionable around christmas time and now i'd think twice about getting an AMD vs. Intel if Intel supports DDR.
p.s. I know RDRAM is faster, but my DDR just seems more stable and more responsive, just me, who knows.
Have a good one,
AJ

hands down AMD out performs (2)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696466)

Ditto to that, I've got a p4 1.5 with 512 MB PC800 rdrram in 2 chips, and a 1.3 amd with 512 MB ddr2100 in 1 chip. The AMD is hands down faster in everything I've had occasion to run. It boots about 10-15 seconds faster. I'll buy the fact that RDR will excell under certain applications, I've just never encountered one.

You are a dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696472)

ardlu: Oooh, I wonder what happens when I take a fan off a processor and let it overheat....

Re:You are a dumbass (1)

artlu (265391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696546)

I was changing the fans (the one i had on was a 7200RPM fan and it was just to loud for me to sleep). As i was taking it off, i broke one of the socket clips that it connects to by accident. So i wanted to see if i ruined the chip and just turned it on with the fan resting on top of it and it shut off after only 4 seconds. So then that ruined the chip. Granted it was a stupid thing to do on my part, but im much happier with my new system then old! And, i learned something, so oh well thats life.
AJ

Getting around a lawsuit more like. (1)

rnicey (315158) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696314)

It's not that they were 'getting around to it'. That's just plain sour grapes and company bashing.
It's that they had a timed agreement with Rambus to be exclusive. They thought they were doing the right thing to boost performance and it didn't work out in all areas of the business model. At least they stick to their agreements.

Re:Getting around a lawsuit more like. (2)

VAXman (96870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696344)

There is no truth to 'Rambus exclusivity' whatsoever. Intel has been shipping the SDRAM version of the i845 chipset for several months, and it is the fastest ramping chipset ever in the industry. The only reason got the gap between the SDRAM and DDR versions is the time to validate it.

Re:Getting around a lawsuit more like. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696650)

This is very wrong.
The Rambus-Intel liscensing deal has RDRAM as the exclusive high speed memory subsystem for Intel until Jan 1 2002. The penalties for breaching this were pretty stiff, so stiff in fact that when combined with the loss Intel would take from the drop in Rambus stock (they own ~15%) it was thought that it would literally cost Intel over 1 Billion to go DDR before then. What kind of behind the scenes deals went on to allow this chipset to ship before Jan 1 I am not privy to.

Re:Getting around a lawsuit more like. (1)

questionlp (58365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696744)

The contract between Intel and Rambus was that Intel could not manufacture nor introduce any products that use newer and competitive memory technologies outside of Rambus RDRAM and SDRAM. DDR SDRAM was a newer memory technology and one that was aim right at RDRAM. That's why Intel sat on their hands on a product that would work with DDR SDRAM... that was until the i845 was introduced.

Intel and Rambus has since re-negotiated their contracts with each other and the "exclusive" clause has been tweaked, but not completely removed. Check out The Inq or The Register for more information about the previous and the recent contracts between the two.

Initial Designs (3, Informative)

Murdock037 (469526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696328)

As we all know, the P4 is designed to take advantage of high memory bandwidth-- which is why the 845 chipset (or whatever) that used SDRAM was such a flop.

When the P4 was first introduced, Intel claimed that it was designed specifically for RDRAM. If this is true-- and I suppose it doesn't have to be-- then is it possible that the new DDR stuff will actually perform below RDRAM systems? Is the only advantage going to be price?

I'm not really a tech guy, so this is an honest question. I'm not a Rambus fan-- I've got a PIII with the 820 chipset, and I'm not particularly fond of it-- but could it be that the company that everybody hates is actually the better way to go in this case?

Of course, everybody around here is going to be be gushing over DDR over Rambus-- if they choose Intel over AMD, which doesn't seem likely-- but it seems that Intel is either stepping backwards or conflicting with their past words.

Re:Initial Designs (1)

Deus Ex Machina (13901) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696397)

The long and short of it is that RAMBUS - the company - created a type of memory which was legally provable to be different from the known standard, and then they tried to claim that they had a patent on SDRAM as well. The chip itself is a perfect example of "Market-engineering"... it was marketed as being much faster and more powerful than SDRAM or DDR, but in real-life conditions it was almost laughably slow and even unstable - overheating being one of its worst problems. As a result, it is frankly the honest-to-god truth that RAMBUS just wanted to usurp the memory market with an inferior product. Don't take my word for it though - go read the articles about RAMBUS at Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] and see it for yourself. The numbers there don't lie, at least in my experience. Intel stuck with RAMBUS because they stood to gain a strong ally in the hardware market, but RAMBUS buggered it all up by being greedy...

Re:Initial Designs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696480)

I don't like Rambus because of the price and the overheat issues. I work in tech support and handle calls on this all day. Most config make you buy it in pairs and the need of the terminator (dumb cards). If they would fix the issues with it and try to lower the price is would be great. DDR ram is fine but it generally only runs at 266mhz. Rambus has 3 speeds PC600 (300mhz), PC700 (356mhz), and PC800 (400mhz). If had to make a choice I would go with Athlon and DDR instead of a P4 with Rambus or DDR. The performance hit you take on a P4 with DDR is pretty high.

Re:Initial Designs (3, Interesting)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696648)

The P4 was designed for truly immense memory bandwidth and very large on chip cache. The current generation of P4 is suffering from the cache being significantly below it's design point, which is somewhere around the 2Mb mark. Obviously with a cache this big the latency of the ram itself isn't such a problem - hence Intel signing up to RDRAM.

Anyway, the actual question was:

but could it be that the company that everybody hates is actually the better way to go in this case?

Not really. There's not that much difference in bandwidth between DDR and RDRAM anyway. And Rambus need to go broke to remind the industry in general that we won't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Unfortunately they have some huge contracts, the PS2 being probably the biggest, so it seems unlikely they are going to go chapter 11 in the near future.

Wankers.

Dave

Re:Initial Designs (1)

questionlp (58365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696766)

The other reason why the Pentium 4 isn't performing as well as it should is that it was built for fast streams of data into it's SSE2 execution units. The problem with the L2 cache isn't really that it is well undersized, it's that the x86 execution units suck altogether. The other problem is the 20-stage pipeline (which was required to ramp the speed up well beyond 1.1Ghz which they were stuck at with the 0.18-micron Pentium III) and they are still using the relatively poor x87 FPU units. The Athlon's FPU units blow away the x87 FPU units both the Pentium III and the Pentium 4 (the PIII and the P4 use almost the same FPU units).


Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] and Real World Tech [realworldtech.com] have great discussions and articles on the downfalls of the Pentium 4 processor.

the unnecessary BIGGER AND FASTER mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696367)

I am using a 4-5 year old dual P-II/233 (it was a single 233 until a year ago, the second processor cost $15).

And boy does it do the job well!

By the way, I don't play advanced games, and I don't need to run big mathematical operations.

I have other machines.. like a laptop, for using onTheMove[tm].. but basically, when I'm *here*, the machine above does the job.

When I consider how to make myself more productive, I ask myself whether I'm using (or writing) the most efficient algorithms -- I don't scream for a faster CPU.

Am I the only one?

Re:the unnecessary BIGGER AND FASTER mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696479)

Yes.
Yes you are, as you say, the "only one".

VIA (1)

Townshend (130057) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696384)

So what exactly does this mean for VIA? Which earlier this year made it possible to use a P4 with DDR, and Intel got furious. The irony eh?

RDRAM not to bad.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696437)

People seem to forget that RDRAM has gone down DRAMATICALLY in price. The days of $900 128mb RIMM's are long gone. You can order 256mb RIMM's for like $76 on pricewatch.com now

Yes DDR is still cheaper per mb, but RDRAM isn't that much more expensive. Especially when you consider how fast & stable it is in the i850 chipset by Intel.

C'mon folks (3, Interesting)

yoink! (196362) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696441)

We've all seen the THG memory bandwidth benchmarks that show RIMMS are still way ahead of DDR DIMMS in terms of bandwidth. The CPU, well that's another story, but nonetheless Intel is not taking back what they've said, they're simply offering another choice to consumers, which is a good thing. I don't think we should critisize them for offering up a system with "slightly" lower performance. How rare is it, when a company has been forced (a la AMD and VIA) to offer more choices for the increasingly price/performance consious consumers? Pour a cold one for the little guy.

The thing about this is... (1, Offtopic)

MisterBlister (539957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696446)

The funny thing about the DDR memory is that when you run it its about faster and better and that is what the thing of it is. I always said that when it comes to DDR memory that I would buy a chunk of chocolate and eat it before the DDR memory would address a bit. And you know what? I was right !!

I bought RDRAM... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696460)

Can you say RIMM job?

Re:I bought RDRAM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696712)

lol! good one.. I hadn't heard that one before.

... and more on the way (1)

Magus311X (5823) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696490)

Back in October at an expo the Intel guys did say this chipset was indeed hitting in Jan/Feb. But they're also looking to bring a 533MHz FSB using 166MHz DDR by June.

Oh, and the P4 mobile also in Q1 2002.

Gimme gimme gimme!

Corrected links (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696491)

Intel "Ball Buster" Farts Up "Big Dick" To DDR-SDRAM
Gamahucheed by Hemos [pornolize.com] on Wednesday "Afterburner" December 12, @06:23PM
from the finally-moving-forward dept.
jandrese [pornolize.com] writes "Raiding to Cnet [pornolize.com] , Intel [pornolize.com] is finally cocksucking around to supporting DDR SDRAM [pornolize.com] in their P4 enters. Aardvarks is a good move on Intel's part, as they need to bring the titty fucking cost of their P4 based systems down to compete with AMD [pornolize.com] , and unclefucking away from Farts is a good start."
( Read "Afterburner" More... [pornolize.com] | 28 [pornolize.com] of 49 [pornolize.com] fingerfucks )

Old News (4, Informative)

NatePWIII (126267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696538)

Hasn't anyone being paying attention to VIA? What about the P4X266 chipset, even Tyan has a board with it: http://tyan.com/products/html/trinity510.html

Intel motherboards and chipsets are fine however you don't have to wait for Intel to come out with a DDR chipset for your P4. VIA has one already.

Re:Old News (1)

jkc120 (104731) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696620)

Yep, I use the Shuttle AV40, works great!

The performance is almost that of an RDRAM solution, but much cheaper.

Re:Old News (1)

isaacwith2as (543482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696638)

The VIA chipset you would really want to look at is the P4X266A; like the KT266A it performs much better than its predecessor. Despite this, some early benchmarks of the 845D look like it outperforms all other DDR solutions. The real advantage to this chipset will be major motherboard manufacturers picking up DDR P4 platforms, ie. ASUS, Abit, Gigabyte, etc. They wouldn't touch the P4X266A because of lawsuit threats.

Re:Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696679)

Hasn't anyone being paying attention to VIA?

Whenever I try to pay attention to VIA, I'm deafened by the big sucking sound. Think I wait for the Intel boards, thanks.

(Also, you'll see very limited adoption of the VIA chipset until they get their legal issues with Intel worked out.)

Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696560)

From another cnet articile, p4 laptops are supposed to be DDR as well and not rambus.

DDR Ram? (0, Offtopic)

griffjon (14945) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696588)

Sorry, every time I see that, I imagine two sticks of ram bouncing around on a Dance Dance Revolution game and wonder what the technological advancement of RAM being able to memorize of Boom Boom Dolla' backwards and trading spots has to do with anything useful.

Then I blink, and the image IS STILL THERE.

Boom Boom Boom...

Intel can't move away because of a contract? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696636)

Didn't Intel have a contract with Rambus which expired recently? And the contract limits Intel's transition to DDR?

not really new (2, Informative)

foonf (447461) | more than 12 years ago | (#2696664)

The i845 actually does and has supported DDR SDRAM since it was designed. Only, Intel has only allowed motherboard manufacturers to produce SDRAM-based boards thus far, allegedly for "validation" reasons, although clearly pressure from Rambus has had something to do with it.

Then there are the DDR P4 chipsets from both VIA and SiS. Don't forget about that.

intel (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696667)

Sure is a good thing they are still a POS.

Re:intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696681)

Yeah well, untill the rest of the world finds out just how much intel blows, still going to get slashdot stories about "faster" ram etc.

Re:intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696781)

To true.

Think the home computer world might decide apple, is realy better and in the long run cheaper?

sigh nah, and we'll find life on mars

Woah Intel wakes up to slower ram! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2696758)

Cool now we can all have slower RAM. Neat.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...