Intel may have known DDR2 was a short-term technology

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
decided to foist it on the world anyways.

CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197

It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.

Yousuf Khan
16 answers Last reply
More about intel ddr2 short term technology
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1114098062.272509.298500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    > decided to foist it on the world anyways.
    >
    > CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
    > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197
    >
    > It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
    > forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.

    Another silly anti-Intel post. This one the silliest of all. DDR2 isn't
    going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10% greater than that of
    DDR uno right now. It's already scaling to 800 MHz and could scale to 1
    GHz. I seriously doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. But hey, I'm sure
    gundeep is one deep dud....dooo
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Judd wrote:

    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along,
    >> but decided to foist it on the world anyways.
    >
    > DDR2 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10%
    > greater than that of DDR uno right now.

    Hold on just a minute! Is your calculator equipped with a Pentium CPU?
    Because it looks like you've been bitten by the FDIV bug all over again.

    Unbuffered, unregistered, SDRAM DIMMs
    512-MB DDR-400 = US$35
    512-MB DDR2-533 = US$60

    That's +71% in my book, not +10%...
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1114098062.272509.298500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along,
    but
    > > decided to foist it on the world anyways.
    >
    > Another silly anti-Intel post. This one the silliest of all. DDR2
    isn't
    > going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10% greater than
    that of
    > DDR uno right now. It's already scaling to 800 MHz and could scale
    to 1
    > GHz. I seriously doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. But hey,
    I'm sure
    > gundeep is one deep dud....dooo

    So you're saying that you don't mind paying extra for a technology that
    may not even get cheaper because it may not have much production life
    left in it; and it may get phased out long before you're ready to
    switch your processor out, not allowing you to salvage any of your
    investment in it? If that's the case, then obviously you're a man of
    great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
    to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
    longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
    know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,
    because if Intel itself doesn't believe in DDR2, then there's not much
    point in waiting for an AMD system that supports DDR2 as there likely
    won't be one.

    Also the article lists that both manufacturers are looking at DDR3 and
    Rambus XDR as possible future technologies. Depending on how successful
    DDR2 is, those future technologies could be pretty far off, or pretty
    near.

    Yousuf Khan
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    David Wang wrote:
    > Was the 90nm process technology only a short term technology, and
    should
    > we have gone from 130nm straight to 65nm? Better yet, should we not
    > skip 65nm altogether and go straight to 45nm?
    >
    > If DDR2 is only a short term technology, perhaps we should have
    skipped
    > from SDRAM to DDR4. DDR3 may not last very long either.

    Great rhetoric, but you know very well that there is a difference
    between transparent technology like process technology, and technology
    which you have to buy new supporting hardware for like DRAM standards.

    A processor at 90nm works much like a processor at 130nm, and it may
    even fit into the same socket as the previous generation processor --
    thus making it transparent. If they had made DDR2 compatible with DDR,
    where you could simply exchange the old RAM for the new RAM and plug it
    into the same slots, then no problem -- that's transparent technology,
    and no one would care if was really DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, or whatever
    underneath.

    > Going from DDR to DDR2 is a natural progression. "Not having much
    > production life left in it" isn't a conspiracy by Intel to drive
    > the screws to AMD. It's just that DRAM datarates are currently
    > doubling every 3 years or so, and DDR2's range of 400 to 800 is
    > only good for 3 years. The DRAM manufacturers can keep DDR2 around
    > for a while and drive it up past 1 Gbps, but the timing pressure
    > on the DRAM core becomes greater.

    It's not the progression from DDR1 to DDR2 that's being questioned
    here. It's the possible progression from DDR1 straight to DDR3 that
    might be spoiling the party here.

    > AMD will support DDR2, then transition to DDR3. Otherwise, sometime
    > down the road, Intel will be shipping products with DDR2-667 while
    AMD
    > will be shipping DDR-400, and that scenario will last a year while
    > everyone sits around waiting for DDR3.

    Which is exactly the point. Are they going to sit around waiting for
    DDR3?

    Yousuf Khan
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Grumble" <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote in message
    news:426819cf$0$31040$626a14ce@news.free.fr...

    > Hold on just a minute! Is your calculator equipped with a Pentium CPU?
    > Because it looks like you've been bitten by the FDIV bug all over again.
    >
    > Unbuffered, unregistered, SDRAM DIMMs
    > 512-MB DDR-400 = US$35
    > 512-MB DDR2-533 = US$60
    >
    > That's +71% in my book, not +10%...

    You can run the numbers any way you want. I think it's best to use the
    best price/performance point for each technology and then compare MB/$.

    For DDR: PC3200 512Mb -> $35
    For DDR2: PC2-4200 512Mb -> $45
    http://www.buyaib.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2342
    http://www.18004memory.com/cart/addcart.asp?Try=Yes&itemID=502568&itemTYPE=cat

    That gives me about 30%.

    DS
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Judd wrote:
    > > "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1114098062.272509.298500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > > > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    > > > decided to foist it on the world anyways.

    Was the 90nm process technology only a short term technology, and should
    we have gone from 130nm straight to 65nm? Better yet, should we not
    skip 65nm altogether and go straight to 45nm?

    If DDR2 is only a short term technology, perhaps we should have skipped
    from SDRAM to DDR4. DDR3 may not last very long either.

    > > Another silly anti-Intel post. This one the silliest of all. DDR2 isn't
    > > going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10% greater than that of
    > > DDR uno right now. It's already scaling to 800 MHz and could scale to 1
    > > GHz. I seriously doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. But hey, I'm sure
    > > gundeep is one deep dud....dooo

    > So you're saying that you don't mind paying extra for a technology that
    > may not even get cheaper because it may not have much production life
    > left in it; and it may get phased out long before you're ready to
    > switch your processor out, not allowing you to salvage any of your
    > investment in it?

    DDR2 will be around for a bit. DDR simply cannot scale to the same
    datarate (at comparable yield levels) as DDR2. PC3200 DDR SDRAM was
    a stop gap of sorts, with bumped voltages. In negative spin parlance,
    PC3200 DDR SDRAM is "overclocked memory" that took over what was
    rightfully a planned DDR2 speed bin, PC2-3200.

    The sweet spot for DDR2 will hit around DDR2-667, and DDR2-800 will
    be pushed out if DDR3 gets pushed out.

    Going from DDR to DDR2 is a natural progression. "Not having much
    production life left in it" isn't a conspiracy by Intel to drive
    the screws to AMD. It's just that DRAM datarates are currently
    doubling every 3 years or so, and DDR2's range of 400 to 800 is
    only good for 3 years. The DRAM manufacturers can keep DDR2 around
    for a while and drive it up past 1 Gbps, but the timing pressure
    on the DRAM core becomes greater.

    > If that's the case, then obviously you're a man of
    > great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
    > to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
    > longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
    > know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,
    > because if Intel itself doesn't believe in DDR2, then there's not much
    > point in waiting for an AMD system that supports DDR2 as there likely
    > won't be one.

    AMD will support DDR2, then transition to DDR3. Otherwise, sometime
    down the road, Intel will be shipping products with DDR2-667 while AMD
    will be shipping DDR-400, and that scenario will last a year while
    everyone sits around waiting for DDR3.

    > Also the article lists that both manufacturers are looking at DDR3 and
    > Rambus XDR as possible future technologies. Depending on how successful
    > DDR2 is, those future technologies could be pretty far off, or pretty
    > near.

    Just a bit of FUD then.

    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > David Wang wrote:
    > > Was the 90nm process technology only a short term technology, and
    > should
    > > we have gone from 130nm straight to 65nm? Better yet, should we not
    > > skip 65nm altogether and go straight to 45nm?
    > >
    > > If DDR2 is only a short term technology, perhaps we should have
    > skipped
    > > from SDRAM to DDR4. DDR3 may not last very long either.

    > Great rhetoric, but you know very well that there is a difference
    > between transparent technology like process technology, and technology
    > which you have to buy new supporting hardware for like DRAM standards.

    If you want a 90nm processor with faster bus/interconnect, you
    will have to move to a new board. You can make the 90nm processor
    with the same bus/interconnect (datarate) as the previous generation,
    Then again, if the point is to get a higher datarate bus/interconnect,
    there is no point in staying with the same system board.

    > A processor at 90nm works much like a processor at 130nm, and it may
    > even fit into the same socket as the previous generation processor --
    > thus making it transparent. If they had made DDR2 compatible with DDR,
    > where you could simply exchange the old RAM for the new RAM and plug it
    > into the same slots, then no problem -- that's transparent technology,
    > and no one would care if was really DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, or whatever
    > underneath.

    Take a look again. DDR2 device command set is a superset of DDR
    devices. DDR2 devices can be made to pretend that they're plain
    jane DDR devices. The mode registers are supersets, the extra
    per nibble differential strobes can be turned off and used just
    as per byte single ended reference strobe. The voltages are a bit
    different. Then again, 90nm processors typically have slightly
    different voltages from 130nm processors. DDR2 devices are compatible
    with DDR devices. You just have to ask DRAM module manufacturers to
    create these oddball DDR2 device in DDR format modules for you to
    fit into your criteria of "compatible", and plug the bastard DDR2
    modules into DDR slots. (with no gains in datarate)

    > > Going from DDR to DDR2 is a natural progression. "Not having much
    > > production life left in it" isn't a conspiracy by Intel to drive
    > > the screws to AMD. It's just that DRAM datarates are currently
    > > doubling every 3 years or so, and DDR2's range of 400 to 800 is
    > > only good for 3 years. The DRAM manufacturers can keep DDR2 around
    > > for a while and drive it up past 1 Gbps, but the timing pressure
    > > on the DRAM core becomes greater.

    > It's not the progression from DDR1 to DDR2 that's being questioned
    > here. It's the possible progression from DDR1 straight to DDR3 that
    > might be spoiling the party here.

    There is no such possibility. Anyone suggesting such possibility is
    not familiar with the progressions of the DRAM market. He/she can
    just as well suggest that 65nm technology is a short term technology,
    and we shouuld jump from 90nm technology to 45nm.

    > > AMD will support DDR2, then transition to DDR3. Otherwise, sometime
    > > down the road, Intel will be shipping products with DDR2-667 while AMD
    > > will be shipping DDR-400, and that scenario will last a year while
    > > everyone sits around waiting for DDR3.

    > Which is exactly the point. Are they going to sit around waiting for
    > DDR3?

    No.


    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 4/22/2005 07:56, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
    > to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
    > longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
    > know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,

    I find that it's never a good idea to try and guess what technology to buy
    based on what "the market" *will* do sometime down the line. It's an
    endless treadmill and you can never keep up.

    When I buy a new mobo I assume I will be buying new memory and processor
    at the same time. I would be foolish to think any other way.

    It's a fact; the tech. never stabilizes and the next great thing is always
    just around the corner.

    ~Jason

    --

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:15:17 -0700, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Grumble" <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote in message
    >news:426819cf$0$31040$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
    >
    >> Hold on just a minute! Is your calculator equipped with a Pentium CPU?
    >> Because it looks like you've been bitten by the FDIV bug all over again.
    >>
    >> Unbuffered, unregistered, SDRAM DIMMs
    >> 512-MB DDR-400 = US$35
    >> 512-MB DDR2-533 = US$60
    >>
    >> That's +71% in my book, not +10%...
    >
    > You can run the numbers any way you want. I think it's best to use the
    >best price/performance point for each technology and then compare MB/$.
    >
    > For DDR: PC3200 512Mb -> $35
    > For DDR2: PC2-4200 512Mb -> $45
    >http://www.buyaib.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2342
    >http://www.18004memory.com/cart/addcart.asp?Try=Yes&itemID=502568&itemTYPE=cat
    >
    > That gives me about 30%.
    >
    > DS
    >

    So, did anyone mention power yet - or has the conspiracy theory not yet run
    its course?
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Jason Gurtz wrote:
    > I find that it's never a good idea to try and guess what technology to buy
    > based on what "the market" *will* do sometime down the line. It's an
    > endless treadmill and you can never keep up.
    >
    > When I buy a new mobo I assume I will be buying new memory and processor
    > at the same time. I would be foolish to think any other way.
    >
    > It's a fact; the tech. never stabilizes and the next great thing is always
    > just around the corner.

    Actually I've been fortunate enough to find solutions that maintain
    backward compatibility for me. I carried a set of SDRAM from a K6 to an
    Athlon system. The Athlon system that I had, had the ability to accept
    both SDRAM and DDR memory, so once I was ready to upgrade the RAM, I was
    already prepared. And I fully expect to carry my DDR over to a new
    Athlon 64 system, whenever i'm ready to buy one of those things. The DDR
    is not top of the line anymore (PC2100), but it will still work in the
    A64. Then if I feel like upgrading the RAM some more, then I can go for
    more uptodate DDR.

    Yousuf Khan
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    David Wang wrote:
    > Take a look again. DDR2 device command set is a superset of DDR
    > devices. DDR2 devices can be made to pretend that they're plain
    > jane DDR devices. The mode registers are supersets, the extra
    > per nibble differential strobes can be turned off and used just
    > as per byte single ended reference strobe. The voltages are a bit
    > different. Then again, 90nm processors typically have slightly
    > different voltages from 130nm processors. DDR2 devices are compatible
    > with DDR devices. You just have to ask DRAM module manufacturers to
    > create these oddball DDR2 device in DDR format modules for you to
    > fit into your criteria of "compatible", and plug the bastard DDR2
    > modules into DDR slots. (with no gains in datarate)

    Well, if they could've made DDR2 physically and electrically compatible
    with DDR1, then they should have.

    Yousuf Khan
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1114098062.272509.298500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    > decided to foist it on the world anyways.

    And then again, they may not have "known" this.

    > CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
    > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197
    >
    > It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
    > forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.

    Oh, the horror!

    --

    ... Hank

    http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
    http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
    > David Wang wrote:
    > > Take a look again. DDR2 device command set is a superset of DDR
    > > devices. DDR2 devices can be made to pretend that they're plain
    > > jane DDR devices. The mode registers are supersets, the extra
    > > per nibble differential strobes can be turned off and used just
    > > as per byte single ended reference strobe. The voltages are a bit
    > > different. Then again, 90nm processors typically have slightly
    > > different voltages from 130nm processors. DDR2 devices are compatible
    > > with DDR devices. You just have to ask DRAM module manufacturers to
    > > create these oddball DDR2 device in DDR format modules for you to
    > > fit into your criteria of "compatible", and plug the bastard DDR2
    > > modules into DDR slots. (with no gains in datarate)

    > Well, if they could've made DDR2 physically and electrically compatible
    > with DDR1, then they should have.

    The point of making a new standard with DDR2 is that you CAN make these
    new DRAM parts with lower voltages, and as daytripper points out, uses
    less power.

    You CAN make DDR2 devices pretend that they're DDR devices, you can even
    make sure that the DDR2 parts are tolerant of DDR voltages. Then again,
    there would be no point in it. You'd win nothing in terms of power
    consumption or increased datarate.


    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    > decided to foist it on the world anyways.
    >
    > CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
    > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197
    >
    > It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
    > forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    Some high end graphics cards are already running DDR3.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 06:00:01 GMT, No one <bibbe@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    >> decided to foist it on the world anyways.
    >>
    >> CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
    >> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197
    >>
    >> It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
    >> forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.
    >>
    >> Yousuf Khan
    >>
    >
    >Some high end graphics cards are already running DDR3.

    Yes but aren't those ram chips soldered right to the cards PCB?
    I would think making sticks for motherboards isn't as easy.

    Ed
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips No one <bibbe@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
    > > decided to foist it on the world anyways.

    > > CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
    > > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197

    > > It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
    > > forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.

    > Some high end graphics cards are already running DDR3.

    GDDR3 is not the same as DDR3.


    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs DDR2 Intel