Frank Volkel, what an idiot, RDRAM WINS!

[Crashman]

Well, it was perfectly clear, in every single test, that PC1066 beets DDR400 by a sizable margin. But Frank Volkel can't take it, instead concluding that DDR400 beets PC800. Duh, we already knew it would, but that's POINTLESS for most of us. Why? Standard Samsung PC800 does PC1066 speed easily. Why do all of those high speed test and not use them for the conclusion? The fact remains that most of us are overclockers, and RDRAM at PC1066 perfectly matches the P4 at "533". And DDR400 cannot match it. It would be utterly stupid for anybody to purchase a P4 DDR board with intent to overclock at this time in light of these facts, these facts which I have been presenting you all these months. Yet some of you idiots still bought a P4 DDR board, those who have done so must be just stupid enough to follow the advice of idiots like Frank, like the blind leading the blind.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[juin]

Strangely you status name say that you are the most dedicate tomshardware fans.

1 thing Pc1200 is tag as Pc 1066 with 32 NS in RDRAM spec PC 1200 is say that Pc1200 must have 30 NS are less.Acualy there only good quality stick on the market i dont want RDRAM market to become like DDR.Corsair XMS overclock approve.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[buddry]

I agree. He is comparing the DDR technology of tomorrow with the RDRAM technology of today.

If you can find it on the internet, it HAS to be true!

 

[AMD_Man]

Actually, he's running the DDR400 at CL2.5! WHAT! Get a P4S533 and 5ns Kingmax RAM, and you'll easily get 400MHz DDR.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[Crashman]

Not to matter, you would need to push the DDR to 533(!) at Cas3 to match PC1066. Sure, DDR533 at Cas 2 would beet it nicely, but you're not going to see that for a LONG time! Which is why it seems so stupid that RDRAM boards are dual channel while DDR SDRAM boards are not. At any rate, it's easy to see that RDRAM continues to be the best choice for the P4 until either super fast DDR or Dual Channel DDR boards are available.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[eden]

You have SiS and VIA for that DC solution, coming very soon thank god.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:

 

[eden]

Sorry but his nick clearly has a C in THG, which means Community, so please don't accuse a respected fan of a community to love more the guides if he did not say THG.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:

 

[Crashman]

Yes, a more accurate conclusion would have been "PC1200 waste DDR400" or "PC1066 waste DDR333" or "PC800 waste DDR266". Ahh, crap, the guy is just a butt monkey, leave him to his own little world. I wonder if Tom even bothers to read these articles any longer?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Crashman]

Yes, and I'm actually starting to fall in love with the darling little company. SiS has worked their way up to being the best alternative chipset producer bar none. From such humble beginings.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[juin]

SIS 645Dx seen very slow compare to intel chipset i hope SIS have something for the near future (R658).SIS take more and more place in the high-end and via lose (i am so happy).

I like to point out that Pc1006 have also waste DDR 400 others benchmark from hardware.fr approve toms benchmark.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[eden]

Again the DDR400 tests on THG's labs were very weak in favor of DDR400's standards because it was put in various disadvantages such as limited FSB, far from being asynchronous, as well as running CAS2.5 and some other reasons.

Also the SiS didn't do well simply cuz it isn't SiS's next improved chip. You should look at their next expected chip, the dual-channel DDR one or their RDRAM one, which just MIGHT be better than Intel's everlasting i850.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:

 

[lhgpoobaa]

always admire the the one that fights its way up from the bottom.

and a comment in that article i noticed as just wrong was
"DDR333 Cas2 is not available on the market yet"
???
wtf
why am i gonna buy some in a week?
corsair stuff has been out for ages.

cant wait for via to release a dualchannel DDR/ P4 chipset though. then rdram will be fighting on its own turf.

P.S. remember back to the beginnings of RDRAM? and how the first RIMMS were blisteringly hot?
is that still the case? how hot does your overclocked sambsung rim run today?
curious.

<font color=purple>Win ME Slayer. And PROUD of it!</font color=purple>

 

[juin]

What you want nothing can beat the old I850

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 05/01/02 10:09 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[eden]

Proof please...
Technology goes forward, not backwards, juin.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:

 

[juin]

Technology goes forward, not backwards, juin.

DDR is not a new top tech if you ask me it simple old SDRAM with 2X data request.Good read perf low write.
Proof just look at the last benchmark if someone can bench E7500 under quake or any memory intesif benchmark

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[AMD_Man]

Hmm, last I checked, DDR RAM came after RDRAM. Hmm..

By your way of thinking, RDRAM is pitiful. Only 16-bit, and extremely high latency per stick compared to DDR.



<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[Crashman]

Hmm, RDRAM as main memory in a PC goes back to the early days of the Pentium III and the i820/i840 chipsets. Don't remember if DDR SDRAM DIMMS were available yet.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[FatBurger]

DDR is not a new memory technology like RDRAM, it's merely an extension of SDRAM (which is why it's more correctly called DDR-SDRAM, though that's too much effort :tongue: ). I think that's what juin was saying.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

RDRAM is OLD came out in the EARLY 90's for special uses, and was introduced as Desktop RAM in the late 90's. When was DDR first applied to Desktop SDRAM?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[bikeman]

Did anybody notice how they 'updated' this article? The first release was talking about the upcoming Intel i845G-chipset, and as I remember even dedicating a page (or two) to the memory-tweaking on that chipset. The updated version does not feature those pages anymore, and benchmarking results now state 'Future DDR chipset' or something thelike. I guess Intel was not happy about what was in the article and threatened THG for breaking some copyright-stuff or something. Any comments?

Greetz,
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bikeman on 05/05/02 04:35 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[AMD_Man]

The first time I saw DDR RAM was in the GeForce256 DDR.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[juin]

RDRAM is not that old.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[Crashman]

Yes, RDRAM existed back then for video, just used far less frequently.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Crashman]

Juin, it's been around a long time, just took a long time to be addapted for PC DIMMS.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Copenhagen]

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Did anybody notice how they 'updated' this article? The first release was talking about the upcoming Intel i845G-chipset, and as I remember even dedicating a page (or two) to the memory-tweaking on that chipset. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, I noticed. They must have violated a NDA. It looked pretty impressive the i845G. Based on a single channel DDR and completely destroying the new SIS645DX performancewise. I hope Intel will make a dual channel DDR version of that chipset. Such a thing would be able to deliver the P4 the needed memory bandwith for quite some time.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i>