Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's SOCKET AM2 TO SUPPORT DDR2 800 MHZ

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 15, 2006 5:51:57 PM

It looks like AMD is very busy sharpening the knife that'll cut Intel's throat.

Quote:
WE ALL expected that AMD planned to support DDR 2 400, 533 and 667 but very few of us expected that the firm plans to include DDR 2 800 MHz on its list. Before February, the plan was to support all memories up to DDR 667 but AMD eventually decided that it can and will support DDR 2 800 MHz from the outset. Now the migration to DDR 2 finally makes sense, as DDR 2 800 MHz can sure show sume difference compared with DDR 1 400 or even DDR 1 overclocked to 667


Read the full story here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29716
February 15, 2006 7:41:28 PM

Reading that news makes me feel sorry on Intel.... poor Intel... :( 
February 15, 2006 7:55:53 PM

939ers! Get ready to throw away your beautiful DDR memories (yeah I am talking about those ones with low CAS and all other cool features).


,,
Related resources
February 15, 2006 7:59:29 PM

Or sell it to me.
I'll be sticking to 939 regardless for at least another year. I could use some faster RAM ... especially if I can get it cheap. :D 
February 15, 2006 8:12:05 PM

oh thank god i knew amd had an ace up their sleeve :lol:  thank you amd thank you!
February 15, 2006 8:37:46 PM

id like to agree with u if i may prozac.
February 15, 2006 8:58:21 PM

this makes me happy, now i want to upgrade to am2. i was starting to veere twords a new intel processors but the netburst architecture was outdated, hopefully well see intel deal with this in their new chips, but i dont how they will compare to am2's running 800mhz ddr2 memory,we will see soon...
February 15, 2006 9:13:53 PM

But look at it this way, Intel will have DDR3 within the next year.
February 15, 2006 9:44:08 PM

lolz :p  it seems that way, and as for u people saying intel will have ddr3 next year and amd is taking baby steps, this is why i relate amd and ati, because ati like amd doesnt switch to the newest tech's the second they come out, they wait for them to be tested and cheaper to produce... if amd is ontop with ddr while intel has ddr2 what makes u think intel will be on top with ddr3 which will be new and unstable with shit timings, compared to ddr2 which will be fast with lower latencys, amd doesnt even need to switch to ddr2, there only doing it for lower voltages, ddr is still good stuff, or as far as i know it is... amd2 probably wont be incredably fast when it first comes out, but what do u expect? they switch to faster memory and the processor speed doubles? no, theyll release the slower ones to kinda get a feel for the new socket so they can really test it, theres no sense in throwing a 4ghz dual core amd for there first processor, i believe they have a good plan in switching to ddr2 so they can use lower voltages and get overall better perforance/heat/voltage ratios... probably better than intels conroe
February 15, 2006 9:44:59 PM

Quote:
AMD be laughed at if they won't support DDR2 800. It's been a while this board and other similar ones are out. Why do people hooray for baby steps of AMD towards AM2?!

Because DDR2-800 is not yet approved by JEDEC. All AMD is doing is being future-proof once DDR2-800 becomes a standard.
February 15, 2006 9:46:56 PM

I never said Intel will be on top with DDR3, I just said it's soon to come. I myself am going to have a difficult choice in the next 8-10 months, having to choose between the latest Intel and AMD processor.
February 15, 2006 9:52:33 PM

Quote:
Because DDR2-800 is not yet approved by JEDEC


Can you imagine they won't approve DDR2 800?! 8O Perhaps we go back to SDRAM then.

Hurry up AMD.

,,
February 15, 2006 9:54:02 PM

Funny how Intel goes to DDR2 and the fanboi's bitch and moan about how much of a bad idea that is and so on...
But when Intel is gearing up for DDR3, and AMD is going to DDR2, the fanbois are praising DDR2 as leveraging AMD to push this technology to its limits and show its stuff once bugs are worked out...
The funny thing is, that the fanbois want future proof, so are waiting for M2 and DDR2, but the future Vista is reportedly stated to work best on DDR3, which is what Intel is going to while AMD is going for the legacy DDR2...
February 15, 2006 10:49:57 PM

u called me a fanboy im touched :) ... i guess u could say i favor amd but i dont consider myself a fanboy, i just think intel is like nvidia, they tend to rush into new technologies and pull ahead but amd/ati catch up by using a better technique in using the newer techs... i hope u understand what im saying cause the words just arnt comming to me right now :( 
February 16, 2006 12:19:26 AM

Quote:
Funny how Intel goes to DDR2 and the fanboi's bitch and moan about how much of a bad idea that is and so on...
But when Intel is gearing up for DDR3, and AMD is going to DDR2, the fanbois are praising DDR2 as leveraging AMD to push this technology to its limits and show its stuff once bugs are worked out...
The funny thing is, that the fanbois want future proof, so are waiting for M2 and DDR2, but the future Vista is reportedly stated to work best on DDR3, which is what Intel is going to while AMD is going for the legacy DDR2...



8)

It should also be pointed out that while Intel are making a big effort to cool their CPU's down, AMD's seem to be gradually getting hotter. But that's OK because everyone knows that having a hot CPU is good because it saves you on your heating bills in winter. Or at least that's what an AMD fanboy once said :wink:
February 16, 2006 12:45:52 AM

[/quote]
It should also be pointed out that while Intel are making a big effort to cool their CPU's down, AMD's seem to be gradually getting hotter. But that's OK because everyone knows that having a hot CPU is good because it saves you on your heating bills in winter. Or at least that's what an AMD fanboy once said :wink:[/quote]

put a smile on my fat face :lol: 
February 16, 2006 12:48:31 AM

hey 9 inch hrmmpph<clearing throat>

AMD FANBOY'S UNITE!!!!!
February 16, 2006 12:53:25 AM

STOP

stop saying which cpus are better and why, sure amds cause more heat, but intels dont offer as much gaming performance, yadda yadda yadda

IM TIRED OF THIS
Intel and amd are commercial rivals, one company innovates the other follows and trys harder thats how it wors has worked and will work, AND WE BENIFIT WITH LOWER PRICES AND LARGER PERFORMANCE

STOP WHINING YOU NINNYS
February 16, 2006 1:02:59 AM

hey dibowski look i like amd for what they make not cause im brainwashed!

AMD FANBOY'S UNITE!!!!!
February 16, 2006 1:21:03 AM

Why don't you jerks actually post something worthwhile rather than stupid fanboy crap :roll:

In a couple of years time IF Intel has the performance lead you'll be posting the same crap about AMD :roll:

Also it should be pointed out that gaming performance is not everything.

Get a life.....
February 16, 2006 1:24:34 AM

get laid ok man i only post here because of my past!
February 16, 2006 1:32:23 AM

Quote:
get laid ok man i only post here because of my past!


I have a girlfriend thanks :) 

So what you're saying is that you don't actually want to contribute to the thread and that you just want to spew anti-Intel crap? :?:

On another forum use you'd banned for posting rubbish like you do here.
February 16, 2006 1:33:14 AM

Quote:
this makes me happy, now i want to upgrade to am2. i was starting to veere twords a new intel processors but the netburst architecture was outdated, hopefully well see intel deal with this in their new chips, but i dont how they will compare to am2's running 800mhz ddr2 memory,we will see soon...


Remember the Netbusr architecture is pretty much phased out, and Conroe won't be based on it.
February 16, 2006 1:34:33 AM

man have u guys seen the prices of ddr2 800 with 2 x 1gb. ranges from $258 to $450... that is expensive.. i hope they are cheap by the time am2 comes out.
February 16, 2006 1:42:39 AM

what will intel do, i doubt they will or can have an onboard memory controller, the onlything i see is increasing the fsd to 2000MHz? if that is so will motherboards become more expensive than cpus.if any one knows enlighten me
February 16, 2006 1:50:10 AM

probably not dybowski i think that in order to increase the fsb on intel procs it would cost more for the multipler setting on the cpu than to increase the fsb say 5x 200 would be more expensive than 4x 250 cause bigger multiplier the more transistrors you have to devote to it and higher heat output(is that how it works someone once told is that how it works i could be wrong tho)
February 16, 2006 2:11:16 AM

FYI, The Inquirer usually get stuff right about half the time. I wouldn't put too much faith in what you read from that site.

Still, DDR2-800 would FRIGIN ROCK!

-mpjesse
February 16, 2006 2:24:08 AM

Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.

Again, that's if... and it's a very big if. Personally I can't see DDR2-800 support for the Athlon 64/X2 line. I can see it in Opteron of FX though. Much like Intel does w/ the Extreme Edition. (i.e., P4 has 800mhz FSB while P4 EE has 1Ghz FSB).

-mpjesse
February 16, 2006 2:46:59 AM

I would really like to see the article that states Vista will run beston DDR3. I was never a fan of DDR2, esp when it first came out with high latency compared ot similar speed DDR. But as will all things tech related the maturity of the product is now making it a worthwhile endeavour.

AMD makes choices when they want to and thats that. They obviously feel that DDR2 is now worth the change. I personaly think the timing has as much to do with the new cores and socket they are introducing as much as the performance increase. Either way, I'm in AMD's camp atm :) 
February 16, 2006 2:47:49 AM

Hoping that DDR2 will be cheap by the time AM2 arrives may be optimistic considering the time frame. Currently DDR2 is experiencing a sizable shortage estimated at between 10-20%. This is without the added demand of DDR2 for AM2 and with OEMs still not completing their transition to DDR2 on Intel platforms. In any case, even though memory manufacturers are attempting to increase production, the shortage will continue through Q1 and into Q2.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20060215171...

The subtitle being:
Quote:
No Memory price Drops to Expect
February 16, 2006 2:52:55 AM

If AMD can run DDR2-800 in Dual Channel by either using 2 HT buses or by providing one new HT bus running @ 2GHz it would have more than 2 times the memory bandwidth Intel has and Intel would be hurting at that point.

Semper Fi Linux on! :D 
February 16, 2006 2:58:08 AM

Quote:
I would really like to see the article that states Vista will run beston DDR3.


Did he really say that? LOL. I'm too lazy to go look...

-mpjesse
February 16, 2006 3:08:19 AM

Nothing new

The DDR3 is still a year away from first mainstream PC implementations, although I do expect the initial support to appear late this year, in combination with volume production of these first chips from Elpida, Samsung and Infineon. The market researchers iSuppli expects DDR3 DRAM to finally replace DDR2 as the main volume product only in 2008, with a projected 55 percent market share that year. Of course, it's a long way till 2008, and there could be various potholes and roadblocks on the DDR3 highway before then. But again, the ultra-bloated Vista freight truck is coming along, in need of all the "performance and capacity fuel" it can get, so don't be surprised to see, among other things like quad-core CPUs and multi-super-duper GPUs, this DDR3 become a recommendation, then a requirement, in the upcoming Age of Vista - for Micro$oft-occupied lands only, that is: the Linux/UNIX 'free realms' can still do as they deem fit.
February 16, 2006 3:12:23 AM

It was also mentioned here with a specific mention of Intel being the ones to support it in 2007.

Quote:
RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_...

AMD will be a year behind with support waiting until 2008 according to their tech outlook.

http://www.amdcompare.com/techoutlook/

You'll have to click into the Platforms section under Memory.

Quote:
AMD, along with its infrastructure partners, plans to incorporate and support DDR3 technology in 2008.
February 16, 2006 3:20:49 AM

That's a far cry from M$ saying Vista will run best on DDR3. Who the hell said all that anyways?

At any rate, DDR3 is only really expected to boost clock speeds and reduce voltage. No big deal. We haven't even seen DDR2 hit the clock speed ceiling yet! For that matter, neither has plain 'ole DDR.

-mpjesse
February 16, 2006 3:40:08 AM

I agree, I think the biggest improvement short term out of DDR3 will be the three after the DDR. AMD has proved that DDR had a lot of life left for them when Intel switched to DDR2.
February 16, 2006 3:42:30 AM

Intel has been positioning DDR3 as a major part of performance per watt and should be hitting PC's by the end of this year scaling up to 1600MHz. During the transition DDR2 will become the budget 32bit Vista systems while DDR3 will be for Performance 64-bit Vista PC's. Many manufacturers such as Samsung, Infineon, and Elpida have already been producing DDR3, and have been refining it for for a couple of years now.
Also, I think in late 2007 or early 2008 AMD will also make the switch, meaning that DDR2 will earn the honors as the tech industries shortest lived memory.
February 16, 2006 3:46:39 AM

I think CPU manufacturers and memory manufacturers need to try and get rid of all these multipliers, latencies, etc. Just imagine a CPU running at 2GHz w/o clock stepping and memory to run at 0-0-0-0 2GHz. The performance is orgasmic, although this seems very farfetched, it would be more performance than just increasing MHz.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 16, 2006 3:52:31 AM

Quote:
Also, I think in late 2007 or early 2008 AMD will also make the switch, meaning that DDR2 will earn the honors as the tech industries shortest lived memory.


What about P4's with RDRAM that ran like crap?
February 16, 2006 3:57:37 AM

Time will tell. But actually, RDRAM at the time was the fastest memory for Intel. The 600MHz sucked, but that was low end. The 1066 RDRAM was as fast as todays, it is just DDR2 was cheaper.
February 16, 2006 3:57:45 AM

AMD has a much better track record in that area. The onboard memory controller makes a BIG difference!
February 16, 2006 3:59:50 AM

what about 754ers? my 3400+ and 6800LE put out decent performance.
February 16, 2006 4:00:27 AM

I overclocked my monitor.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 16, 2006 5:21:33 AM

Quote:
Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.


Mmmm please let me doubt that.
Intel officially uses DDR2
AMD officially uses DDR
We could expect to see some really noticable difference in favor of Intel.
Everything will depend on how the new FSB/Hypertransport will be set up.

ATM i'm thinking more of a cheap marketing ploy ...
Very much like the Rambus, PC5400, PC6400 etc etc
February 16, 2006 5:46:18 AM

Quote:
Time will tell. But actually, RDRAM at the time was the fastest memory for Intel. The 600MHz sucked, but that was low end. The 1066 RDRAM was as fast as todays, it is just DDR2 was cheaper.


Well, I remember where I was working support at the time, that all the P4s with RDRAM we got sucked. Our older P-IIIs were much faster even though they were 2-400 MHz slower.
February 16, 2006 8:32:22 AM

Quote:
...meaning that DDR2 will earn the honors as the tech industries shortest lived memory.


damn you people forget quickly.

does nobody else remember BEDO RAM's 6 months at the top??
or that glorious year of RDRAM?

Quote:
Well, I remember where I was working support at the time, that all the P4s with RDRAM we got sucked. Our older P-IIIs were much faster even though they were 2-400 MHz slower.


*cough* A Tualatin at 1.4GHz could kick the arse of any P4 clocked below 2GHz, regardless of RAM standard.
(ps, Tualatin went on to become Banias, then Dothan, Merom, and soon Conroe. Whereas all P4s ended up becoming Prescott. And we all know how good they were... :roll: )


And back to the topic, one of the reasons that Athlons beat P4s, and why they haven't had to leave DDR yet, is because they effectively had 2 FSBs (HyperTransport and Memory). P4s had to go to DDR2-800+ simply because they had to jam twice as much data onto one FSB. So damn, an AM2 with DDR2-800 will absolutely kick ass. So will one with DDR2-667 though.
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2006 3:23:40 AM

The reason everyone moaned about Intel's switch to DDR2 was that DDR2 533 was CAS5 back then, and DDR2 400 was CAS4. Now you can get DDR2-667 at CAS3, so the latency penalty goes away and it becomes a viable option. DDR2-800 CAS4 will have the same latency penalty (in nanoseconds) as DDR-400 CAS2.

AMD pushed DDR400 before it was standard too.
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2006 3:25:51 AM

Quote:
Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.

-mpjesse


Only in memory benchmarks. You should start reading more memery benches using AMD CPU's, DDR2-800 might give programs as much as 15% performance gain over DDR-400.
February 18, 2006 3:28:51 AM

wow crashman you are the master historian of thg wow 8O
!