Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RDRAM - RIMM 4200

Tags:
  • Memory
  • Support
  • Motherboards
  • RDRAM
Last response: in Memory
Share
August 27, 2002 1:28:13 PM

RIMM 4200 is the fastest type of RDRAM, right?
And if so, is it faster than DDR350?

Which motherboards support it?

More about : rdram rimm 4200

August 27, 2002 2:12:30 PM

Faster not necessarily.

I posted this on another thread...
Quote:
RIMM 4200 is a newer form factor and a slightly different architecture. PC1066 with the new PCB form factor that fits the RIMM 4200, is the 32bit module for the next round of RDRAM memory architecture. (See page 4 of the <A HREF="http://www.rambus.com/rdf/presentations/RIMM3264_06.12...." target="_new"><i>Rambus® 32 and 64 bit RIMM™ Module - Technology Summary</i></A> Note: That paper is from June 2001 and some things have changed, but you get the idea.) For the current PC1066 under RIMM 1600 and RIMM 2100, all are 16-bit. (Well except any engineering samples with the RIMM 1600 and RIMM 2100 form factor.) Here is another good paper on the RIMM 4200 showing the up to date layout of the RIMM 4200 module, use of both channels, clock speeds, etc. (Plus it is only 3 pages long...good for those who can only do a quick read.) It is the <A HREF="http://www.rambus.com/downloads/rimm_4200_white_paper.p..." target="_new"><i>Rambus RDRAM® RIMM™ 4200 white paper - By Mike Feibus, Feibus SC -May 2002</i></A>.

As for PC1066 modules themselves...

"<font color=green>The 512/576 Mb RDRAM devices are extremely highspeed CMOS DRAMs organized as 32M words by 16 or 18 bits. The use of Rambus Signaling Level (RSL) technology permits 600 MHz to 1066 MHz transfer rates while using conventional system and board design technologies. 1066 MHz RDRAM devices are capable of sustained data transfers at 0.9375 ns per two bytes (7.5 ns per sixteen bytes).</font color=green>" - Taken from page 1 of the <i>Rambus 1066 MHz RDRAM 512/576Mb (8Mx16/18x4i) Advance Information Fact Sheet</i>. Look at page 16 and 17 of the <A HREF="http://www.rambus.com/rdf/presentations/1_05_RambusRoad..." target="_new"><i>RDRAM RDRAM® Device and Device and RIMM RIMM™ Module Roadmap Module Roadmap - Frank Fox Frank Fox - VP, RDRAM Standards Division VP, RDRAM Standards Division Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. - October 22, 2001 October 22, 2001</i></A> for a good explination for the 16 bit, 32 bit, and 64 bit module designs for the existing form factor using the RIMM 1600 and the RIMM 2100. But as you have seen from the Tom's, <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/02q2/020624/i850e..." target="_new">Warp Speed with Rambus: Six Boards for PC1066</A> article you can see the RIMM 4200 form factor. It looks like they are using what they had designed for the form factor for the 64 bit. (See all of the Rambus papers above.) It looks like they needed to eliminate one of the keys for the extra pins. {That is just my speculation...}


So for the speed question. Between a module that is based on the RIMM 2100 and is 800MHz verses one based on the RIMM 4200. Then yes the 4200 will be "Faster." It is because of the location of the terminating resistors. On module PCB verses the motherboard. Analogy with a car trip... Shorter trip to take the sooner it is finished. The same applies here.

PC1066 on the RIMM 2100 will be faster than a PC800 based on RIMM 2100. So decide for yourself.

Back to you...

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
August 28, 2002 5:57:42 AM

In theory but in pratice yes and no

At the end i have speak with a horny lady
Related resources
August 28, 2002 2:19:16 PM

Juin,

Well thought out explination...(I am just bustin' you chops.)


Fleft,

I realized that I said that PC1066 is faster than PC800 on the same type of RIMM but I should have also told you that PC1066 on a RIMM 2100 is faster than PC800 on a RIMM 4200.

There are a lot of boards available with the RIMM 2100. It is the most economical approach for RDRAM. However ther are some based on the RIMM 4200. They and the memory come with a hefty premium. So if you are looking to go high speed and cost effective stick with the RIMM 2100 and PC1066. There are a lot of threads here in the THGC with choices on a good motherboard for PC1066 and a RIMM 2100. So please do a search.

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
August 29, 2002 2:13:30 AM

thanks for the info.....i didnt understand all of it...but I learned some...
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
August 30, 2002 5:00:26 AM

OK BUM is apparently not giving you the info you need:

DDR350 is "PC2800", meaning 2800MB/s. RIMM 4200 is 4200MB/s. So you can see which is faster.

RIMM4200 is a new version of PC1066. It basically uses the components from two PC1066 modules on one module to eliminate the need to purchase your modules in pairs for the i850E chipset. It's exactly the same speed as PC1066 but has slightly less cas latency due to the shorter data path of using one module instead of two in series.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
August 30, 2002 6:21:13 AM

Rimm 4200 can be faster that Pc1066<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 08/30/02 02:24 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 30, 2002 9:53:44 PM

fleft,

Economical answer.

Buy two sticks of PC1066 or PC800 (overclock it to 1066) based on the RIMM 2100. Also buy a board based on the RIMM 2100.

Best answer.

Buy one stick PC1066 with the RIMM 4200 form factor(layout). Buy a motherboard with RIMM 4200.

DDR is not the option with a P4 system. To many latency issues. (Speed, max bandwidth, clock defferntials, etc.)


Crash,

Sorry to drive you nuts.

Smile! :smile: It's the Friday of a long weekend.

I had a longer explination but if fleft wants it i'll share more.

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
August 30, 2002 9:56:07 PM

You still make no gramatical sense.

Please...!!!! get a better translation software set or take an english writting class.

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
August 30, 2002 10:19:33 PM

Funny thing about theory and practice: None of those alternate specs matter if only one of these exist on the market, ie:

1.) All true PC1066 on the market uses 32-35ns chips.
2.) All currently specified PC4200 uses 32-35ns chips.

Therefore, it is resolved:

For available products, all PC4200 meets the same cycle time requirements as PC1066. The shorter data path does help reduce latency.

So instead of talking PC1066 PC4200, just call it PC4200 and make things easier on everyone, at least until someone releases some junk. If you want to be fussy, talk clock speed, as in all current PC4200 and PC1066 products are 533MHz RDRAM.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
August 31, 2002 11:38:54 PM

Both achieve 4.2GB/s, yes. But, you see that is what is so dumb about the naming scheme. It would be easier if it was 4200-PC1066 and 2100-PC1066 or 42-1066 and 21-1066. At least this way the form factor is stated. Better to find parts and talk about so all can understand. A lot of people still have no clue about any of it. Even in the FAQ it is listed as PC4200 for RDRAM but based on where the clock speeds are headed and QDR already being produced, PC4200 will not work for long as a naming method.

What do you think?

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
September 1, 2002 4:29:19 AM

Well, considering that all PC4200 is 533MHz 32-bit, and all PC1066 is 533MHz 16-bit, there is no need to change the names or make things more complicated. PC1066 is 2100MB/s BTW, but makes 4200MB/s on the i850E because the i850E is a dual channel chipset. If you were to use it on the single channel i820 or i840 chipsets, it would only be 2100MB/s.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 3, 2002 8:19:32 PM

Based n that last post, you would use a RIMM 4200 connector on a i820 or i840 based board. That most likely wouldn't happen. All that aside...

I know what you are saying and I agree that the current naming situation "works".

Both SDR/DDR SDRAM, and RDRAM use the "PC" street name. That is the problem. I mean that QDR at a 133MHz signal will be 4200GB/s. So what about that?

I mean that memory under the SDRAM vein was speed based naming scheme where on the RDRAM vein was bandwidth based. However, now there is crosover on the DDR side.

At least the technical naming scheme still works under it's own dicipline type. DDR200-DDR400 for DDRSDRAM, PC66-PC166 for SDRSDRAM, and PC600-PC1066 for RDRAM. However there is a new architecture form factor around RIMM 4200. At least with DDR they changed the naming scheme.

That is where I am coming from. We can beat this issue to death, but we are not the "namegivers," and we won't get far. That is the street vendor's and marketing genius'(Oxymoronic) job to come up with a naming scheme that the public accepts.

So what do you think...?

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
September 3, 2002 8:35:05 PM

One more thought. Current DRCGs can handle a 600MHz signal. (I know that you know this.) However what will happen when 1200MHz RDRAM comes out under the RIMM 4200 form factor.

What will it be called? Not PC4200? And current PC1066 can be clocked to 600MHz as well. What will that be called... And it will go on and on...

This is like a web that, as Pee-Wee Herman once said, someone keeps... "Knitting, and knitting, and knitting, and knitting, and knitting,..."

:smile:

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
September 3, 2002 9:21:56 PM

Nope, because the i820 RDRAM and i840 boards used single modules at 16 bits. So my argument that PC4200 is always 533MHz 32-bit RDRAM stands.

Nope, PC1066 is only 2100MB/s on the i820/i840, because they use single modules. PC1066 is only 4200MB/s when used with the P4. But for both chipset types it can be called PC1066 and still mean the same thing. So there's your PIII chipset argument.

They DID change the naming scheme, PC1066 has always been called PC1066, and it's always 533MHz 16-bit. PC4200 is always 533MHz 32-bit. Datasheets notwithstanding, I'm talking about real current products.

Of course we're not the namegivers, but these are the names being used in industry for retail PC RDRAM, so that's good enough.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
September 3, 2002 9:31:04 PM

It would be called PC4800 of course, following the current PC4200 naming scheme.

And PC1066 is garunteed at 533MHz. When the standard allows it to be called PC1200 at 600MHz, it will be called PC1200. So now you have a continuation of the current standards with no confusion whatsoever over mixed products:

PC1066 (16-bit) and PC4200 (32-bit) at 533MHz.
PC1200 (16-bit) and PC4800 (32-bit) at 600MHz.

No one bit of confusion, and no need to argue about "what ifs" considering these are the naming conventions currently used.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 5, 2002 1:55:23 PM

Points well taken...

"<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>"

You're at least second class in my book. :smile:

<b>"If I melt dry ice in a bathtub, can I take a bath without getting wet?" - Steven Wright</b>
!