Hello,  
I'm wondering why:
 
OCZ PC-4200 "DDR2" Value Series 2GB (2X1024MB) Dual Channel Kit
 
is far less expensive then  
 
OCZ PC-3200 "DDR"433 Performance Series 2GB (2x1GB) Dual Channel Kit CAS3???
 
I'm building a new system within the next 2 weeks and am planning on purchasing 2 X "2x1GB Dual Channel Kits" = 4GB
 
I honestly haven't deceided what mobo or CPU i'll be choosing.  I care very little about if it's a AMD or Intel.  Though I do realize that if it's DDR2 I require, then it'll mostlikely be Intel.  This is why I ask this question.  
Why is DDR2 less expensive then DDR?  Also, which is really the perferable one to go with?  Not taking in account mobo or cpu selections.
 
Christa

This is a good question and brings up some topics that are possibly new to many of the THG readers.  
 
The fact that we are seeing right now is that DDR2 is cheaper than DDR for the majority of products available in the spot and contract markets (that's the majority of the market).  
 
There are several reasons for the price difference:
 
<b>DDR2 HAS NOT FULLY MATURED </b>
Demand is weak when people are buying parts for new systems as opposed to upgrades. As many know, the upgrades market makes up for about 10% of memory sales. This area is non-existant for DDR2, which weakens the demand in comparison to DDR.  
 
<b>EXPENSIVE DDR2 MOTHERBOARDS</b>
The boards supporting DDR2 modules are in range 20-30% more expensive than their DDR counterparts. As a result, many people decide to stay with DDR. Of course this lowers the demand for DDR2 in comparison.  
 
<b>NO AMD SUPPORT FOR DDR2</b>
AMD has yet to enter the DDR2 market in full force. Naturally, nearly 100% of the people buying new AMD systems must stick with DDR modules.  
 
<b>NO SIGNIFICANT SPEED GAP</b>
Even though DDR2 1000MHz is available it is still too expensive and not fully matured as a product. Also, at the same rated speed, DDR out performs DDR2 because DDR has better latency ratings. Thus many DDR modules out perform thier DDR2 counterparts.  
 
<b>DDR2 HAS A NEW PACKAGE TECHNOLOGY</b>
All DDR2 products are built using FBGA (Fine Ball Grid Array) chips, which are smaller in dimension and contain balls on the bottom of the chips as opposed to pins on the side like most DDR modules. Many manufacturers are reluctant to buy DDR2 still because RMA is very difficult to handle for the new chip technology.  
 
Hopefully this paints a better picture of DDR2.  
 
One thing is certain: DDR2 is the next generation technology for memory modules. Most of the new motherboad productions will be geared towards DDR2, in which case the price for DDR2 will increase until it fully matures. When this happens prices should stabilize, and then when DDR2 becomes the market standard prices will drop below DDR again, in much the same way as SDRAM is cheaper than DDR now.  
 
The deciding factor:  
1. If you are a gamer go AMD with DDR. (You may need to upgrade to DDR2 later)
2. For professional applications and for workstations, you are better off with Intel and DDR2. (The DDR2 can be used later when you upgrade)
 
<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha  
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem

Thanks for the detailed answer.  I appreciate it.  
 
I'm building a Digital Audio Workstation that needs quite a bit of memory for us with sample libraries.
 
It seems like I can get almost twice as much memory going with DDR2 then with DDR in cost.  Though I was starting lean towards AMD which makes think I might wana wait it out until they're compatible.
 
Thanks,
 
Christa

I've notice the same thing when it comes to the 1gb modules, which is where I would go when I build my next system and I also need 2gb+ memory for what I do (3d rendering, compressing frames into animations etc..). I am not confident the AMD platform will handle four 1gb sticks of ram reliably so looks like after 6 years I will be building an Itel machine again.

I believe the new newcastle core AMD chips (and prolly the dual core chips two)dont have the same problems with four modules as the newcastle/clawhammers did.
 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jammydodger on 07/10/05 06:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

AMD is better for gaming no doubt.  
 
But, I think that Intel (stabilitywise) still holds a solid lead for the professional workstation & server, and for professional applications relating to audio and video. This has always been Intel's specialty area.  
 
Just an opinion.  
 
<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha  
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem

I agree, when a PC audio workstation is needed, it tends to be Intel.  Though most in the industry would scaff at the idea of having Intel PC and DAW in the same sentence.  Mac is undoubtably the majority usage though certain audio software is not offered on it's platform.  
PC is the reality for many who use massive sample libraries.  Mostly becuase of software, cost, and becuase it's not difficult to assemble another P4 for library slaving.  
I've used both AMD and Intel for audio though I tend to go for AMD becuase Intel's hyperthread technology does not function with the sampler i use, Gigastudio.  
 
Christa