Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Good read on DDR-2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 11, 2004 10:34:48 PM

This <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15266" target="_new">INQ article </A> does a good job IMHO of explaining the upcoming issues with DDR2, I recommend you read it if you havent already.

However, the INQ fails to point out one thing: AFAIK, s775 will absolutely not require DDR-2, the i9xx chipsets will support both DDR and DDR2, so you should have no problem picking up a DDR based P4 motherboard (which will likely make a lot more sense than a DDR2 board this year).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by P4Man on 04/11/04 06:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : good read ddr

April 11, 2004 10:50:26 PM

Hi P4Man, wrong link. Glad I'm not that guy. :) 


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
April 11, 2004 10:56:17 PM

Doh.. fixed the link. Again, tabbed browsing rocks :) 
Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thank god the url was not of one of the 37 porn sites I have open in opera as well :p 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Related resources
April 12, 2004 1:55:17 AM

no problem.

Yes, good thing for sure it wasn't one of those.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
April 12, 2004 1:56:07 AM

? :wink:

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
April 12, 2004 2:07:54 AM

The chipsets might support bothe types, but I wonder what boards will support. The gap is not in the same place so to support bothe a mobo will need twice as many slots.
It has been a very long time since I say a desktop board with 8 ram slots.
April 12, 2004 3:49:49 AM

But then who is going to buy DDR2? its twice as expencive and the only person who might want to buy it is the dummy who just looks and says DDR2 and its twice as expencive? ANd because of the name DDR2 it must be twice as good, as to the reason its twice the price. I think that this will probly be the minority of buyers. Its just to expencive and with the option to buy cheap ram I think most people will ask the question is it worth the buy? Just like most people out there aren't running the FX or EE because they asked the question "Is it worth the extra $$" I could be wrong here but time will tell.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Frozen_Fallout on 04/11/04 10:51 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 12, 2004 4:19:17 AM

Most will just buy DDR2. Look how many posts we have from people who just bought P4e chips.
April 12, 2004 4:21:39 AM

Yeah but the P4e was the same price as the P4c so the normal person really never saw the switch. But a normal person will see the price diffrence between DDR and DDR2 and will ask questions. The thing about the P4e is that its not better or worse for the commen person and its the same price so the commen person doesn't care.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 12, 2004 4:42:55 AM

Most of them went for it because it's new and new=better.
April 12, 2004 5:48:59 AM

I still think price will pay a facter if the New boards support DDR and DDR2 I admit that if Intel just has DDR2 on their boards they will still sell because new is better but if intel allows for old and new on the same board the people will go with price.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 12, 2004 6:14:31 AM

One other reason I think intel will have to use just DDR2 is because of the proformance of now, they have to push it quickly through and not do a slow transision.

If they wanted to have a slow transision I personly think that the best rought would be have two diffrent proformance classes. but the point is that DDR2 isn't a proformace booster. So people are going to ask why there is two diffrent types of memory supported and which is better and what the price is. The answer is going to be "The DDR2 is new and better and its twice the price" People are going to ask why is it twice the price and they aren't just going to exept better they are going to want to know how much better. And well you know that answer to that. And would you buy DDR2 when it first came out?

I have high hopes for humanity I know :) 

Basicly what Im saying is that supporting two diffent memorry types will bring up questions and questions are something this type of transision can not bring up if it wishes to get pushed though.

Speed also plays a factor Intel is going to try and make people forget about DDR as quick as possible and push DDR2 into your brain. This is also another reason it would be good for AMD to keep DDR around as it will keep it fresh in your mind and in doing this hurt intel. Well this might not really be a reason for AMD but it is a bonus in a way. Well that is if Im right.


-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 12, 2004 8:16:00 AM

Nah! Newer is ofcourse better, but newer and more expensive is much better. Most people wont ask, because they dont want to look stupid. How long will it be till the next sucker comes alomg?
April 12, 2004 9:00:13 AM

The P4E is a different matter really; there is no need to get or design a special board for it, its the same price, its roughly the same performance, and in some rare cases its even a better deal. Also, lots of people are probably not even aware of the difference between C and E anyway, and/or get the "e" for the 1MB cache at the same price and/or get a OEM machine that comes with the P4E. P4C will be phazed out as well, leaving the E as the only (P4) choice over time.

DDR-2 OTOH, I don't see why MB vendores would be thrilled to design motherboards areound it, as demand is likely to be low. unlike with RDRAM transistion, they can still use the same chipset. OEM's would have to be stupid to adopt DDR2 early, unless they think the marketing advantahes of "DDR-2" outweighs the higher cost / lower benchmark, and most DIY builders will be scared away by the price even if they think its faster.

All in all, looks like it is going to be a slooow ramp, unless maybe for notebooks where DDR-2 could make a lot more sense with its lower power consumption, and higher speeds matching the 533 MHz FSB of Dothan and mobile P4 celerons without needing dual channel and running in synch.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 12, 2004 11:04:41 AM

I do have high hopes for humanity :) . It is funny how it looks like everyone just watches the TV for the lates and greates stuff and when they see a commercal they just suppose that, that product is the best just because it has a commercal. Also the whole Idea that $$ equiles performance is really really stupid but its true alot of people actualy think that $$ is a good way to judge preformance of everthing today.

I still hold by my statment though that Intel will have to use one standared for their board in order to get DDR2 along and running quick. It also forces the Intel Fanboys to use DDR2 and intel does have a strong fallowing of Fanboys around the world. How ever DDR2 doesn't infact most people don't know about it or don't like it as of right now but see the futur profit of it. Plus yes $$ does equile preformance but only to a point or else the P4 would be priced at $800. I personly think that alot of people will ask questions when a price is out of wack compared to a compeditor. DDR2's compeditor isn't AMD or some no name company its DDR and like Intel, DDR is truested by the masses to be a good preformer. In order for intel to pull this off they cant do their normal stratigy of just let the dummies buy it because it isn't the P4 they are trying to sell here its DDR2. People know the P4 and why it would be a good idea to buy it even if the price went up people don't care its a proven product. DDR2 isn't a proven product and people are going to ask questions if they can buy the compeditor for half the cost.

I kinda see it as if AMD tried to sell their processors at twice the price of intel. AMD is unknown and doesn't give any proformance advatige so even if they had commercals out there it would be a really tuff sell to anyone as people will ask questions if they see a compeditor at half the price. (not exactly the same but I think you can get the idea)

So the only way I see Intel pushing DDR2 though with any good sales is if DDR2 doesn't have to compete with DDR which it really won't have to unless you look at a AMD processor but really Intel does have the market right now and the Masses still don't consider AMD for a buy right now so I don't see a problem to much with just getting rid of DRR because like you said Newer=better. Why bring up questions needlessly?

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 12, 2004 11:12:45 AM

I don't think motherboards are the ones who want this its Intel. And since its Intel who is making the jump first they are the ones who are going to hit the hardest. Intel will take a lose in this indever and I don't think they care they see the benfits out way the lose of money. Don't ask me why they desided to jump first but hey someone has to I guess.

One question though? If Intel wouldn't take this "JUMP" who would and how long do you think it would take. Peronly I don't know who would make the jump but AMD might but that would be in about 1 year+ and the prices would probly still be insane but at least the proformance is there.

I don't see why Intel doesn't wait like everyone else wants to. I think they might have a trick up their sleeve? Because as far as I have read and heard there is no really good reason to go to DDR2 right now not even for Intel but in a Year + the transision would be a good idea when the preformance is out there.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 12, 2004 11:37:19 AM

Dunno.. but intel has a history of introducing advanced but overpriced and underperforming technologies way to early :) 

There are some valid reasons to support DDR-2 though, like I said, it will nicely match Dothan in notebooks at 533 MHz and with lower power to boot, and once 667 Mhz becomes available, it will probably make sense from a performance POV in desktops as well. Heck, even 533 might not be that bad, especially not with a 1066 FSB. The one thing that doesnt make sense anywhere is the DDR-2 400 standard, but I guess its not that different from PC600 RDRAM not that long ago. I guess its just a way to make DDR2 533 and up affordable. If you're smart, you avoid it though.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 12, 2004 2:53:53 PM

Even more so because the chipsets will also support DDR400.

The hardware world has become a confusing one nowadays...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 12, 2004 5:20:01 PM

You said it. Now with Intel's new numbering system for CPUS what a mess.
April 12, 2004 10:38:13 PM

very good news for amd,more mainstream users will which to them and maybe even dell and company.
April 12, 2004 11:57:37 PM

Maybe, I'm sure Dell is not too thrilled about DDR2, but they are probably the reason for DDR1 support.
April 13, 2004 2:09:25 AM

How is this good news for AMD?... I mean, Intel will still support the good old DDR400 in their newest chipsets.

Anyway, what if DDR533 turns out to be supported? I mean, Jedec didn't approve it, neither did they approve DDR500, but if DDR-finetuning could churn out DDR500 or DDR533 (like <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20040412160..." target="_new">this incredible memory here</A>, which even gets to DDR550... DDR533 is not too unusual!), then Intel's Grantsdale and Canterwood's support for DDR2-533 would be made obsolete.

And we'd get better performance. We'd only need DDR2 by DDR2-667 speeds, and that would make sense. By DDR2-800, we'd have the same latencies as in low-latency DDR400 or better.

Just imagine if someone could get DDR1-sticks at DDR533 speeds (posssible) working on an i915 board with 1066Mhz FSB?... Might be a bit off, but it would be great. It's as far off as Xbitlabs' theory on DDR500 paired with AMD's 1Ghz HT bus... 1Ghz HT bus has already been announced, though... But it's a safe bet that Intel will upgrade their FSB speed at some point... And given that some memory manufacturers have announced plans to mass-produce DDR1 modules at higher-than-400 speeds (in excess of DDR500 or DDR533), Intel might find it to be a wise idea to support these DDR1-memory modules in grantsdale... It would give them a tremendous boost in sales... And going DDR500 or DDR533 will certainly be better than going DDR2-533, while certainly not being more expensive than DDR2!!! :cool:

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 04/13/04 01:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2004 12:31:25 PM

> mean, Intel will still support the good old DDR400 in
>their newest chipsets.

I just read somewhere i925x (Alderwood) will NOT support DDR, only DDR2. Only Grandsdale would support DDR1 as well, but I'm not too sure what else the difference is betwen Alderwood and Grandsdale.. anyone to clue me in ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 13, 2004 2:22:17 PM

Yes, I read that too. i925X won't support DDR1.

What I find remarkable is that Alderwood is definitely Canterwood's counterpart: it should be the higher-performing alternative. This makes me wonder if it makes any sense only to support DDR2 - would this mean that they built such a solid chipset that they fully counter the DDR2 latencies with it? Or aren't these platforms affected by the increased latencies?

Alderwood and granstdale, as far as I know, <b>will support DDR2-533</b> right from the start. I wonder why noone has heard any word on that 1066Mhz FSB yet....

Wasn't alderwood supposed to be 5% faster than canterwood?... or something?

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 13, 2004 4:12:22 PM

With the introduction of low latency DDR550 like in this inquierer article, I sure hope they make DDR1 still an option. That there's some OC'ers ram.

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15311" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15311&lt;/A>


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 04/13/04 12:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2004 4:17:38 PM

Because they are trying to SELL DDR2 and the only really good way to do that is to force people to buy it. I think I see how Intel is going to sell DDR2 now, before I didn't. They are going to sell it on a preformance line of motherboards which might be intersting to see if it works. DDR2 does give you a performance advantige is what they will say and they will be kinda right but the performance wont come from DDR2 but the motherboard.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Frozen_Fallout on 04/13/04 12:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2004 7:21:06 PM

Didn't I say so?...

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/200404130..." target="_new">Intel i925X Gets 1066MHz PSB, DDR2 667MHz Memory Support</A>

:cool:

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 13, 2004 9:08:46 PM

well you cant evne buy ddr 667 until maybe q1 of next year, so whats the point? thsi new chipset better brign some serious performance boost to overcome the higher latency and out of sync memory/ fsb ratio, unless intel just assumes anyone buying that chipset will be buying ddr2 533 sticks. I will be very interested to see how things turn out, alot of questions to be answered. personally, i dont think the new chipset will be enough to overcome the ram latency and be abl eot push it into the all around leader. only when ddr2 ramps up in speed will we see the real boost. i just think this is all to get ddr2 imbedded into the market and get roots in, the pluses of performance will come later. if intel can convince some that all these new fangandled technologies produce noticeable gains now, that much the better. Intel is a marketing machine after all, and they have plenty of ammo to work with.
April 13, 2004 9:25:36 PM

Yes, but a 1066Mhz FSB can be paired <i>synchronously</i> with DDR2-533 or even DDR533.

If you stick to JEDEC-approved, I suspect synchronous operation of DDR2-533 with 1066Mhz might yield better performance than asynch with DDR400. This would be a reason to go DDR2... And it is a way to counter the initially higher latencies because a 1066+DDR2-533 would be faster than 800+DDR2-533, for sure, and probably even faster than 800+DDR400...

And seriously, it is not a surprise that they'd push DDR2-533 with 1066Mhz and not with 800Mhz FSB. After all, there's no point in having DDR2-533 if the extra bandwidth is useless for the processor!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 13, 2004 9:31:11 PM

Quote:
well you cant evne buy ddr 667 until maybe q1 of next year, so whats the point?

Really?

Take a look at <A HREF="http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/common/pr..." target="_new">Samsung's DDR2</A> lineup. The listed DDR2 SDRAM modules are all in mass production. And check the supported speeds: CC (DDR2-400), D5 (DDR2-533) <b>and E6</b>, DDR2-667. I suspect that, if support for such memory was there with alderwood, we might be seeing more DDR2-667 sooner than in a year.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 13, 2004 11:06:08 PM

You beat me to it, I was about to post that link.

I think the issue with the 1066 bus is power/heat. Prescott seems thermally/power limited more than anything, and FSB takes a rather large chunk of the already "limited" power enveloppe. Within a given thermal enveloppe, I guess intel has to choose between performance (lower clockspeed, but higher FSB), and "sellability" (higher clock, lower FSB). If they can't get prescotts power consumption under control, I doubt they can do both without problems/compromises. If we see no 1066 fsb for a while, I'm pretty sure the main reason is power draw.

Otherwise, I agree DDR2-533 + 1066 will probably be slightly faster than DDR400 + 800 fsb, though I'm not convinced it will really be worth the higher price and higher power draw, at least initially (read: this year). And DDR-2 400 still doesnt make any sense anywhere AFAICS.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 14, 2004 12:33:10 AM

Maybe DDR2-667 Support will make asynch operation of 1066Mhz and DDR2-667 possible... But even so, there's little benefit from the extra bandwidth, because a 1333Mhz is probably completely unfeasible right now.

I was under the impression that the support for DDR2-533 was already indicative of 1066Mhz. So the DDR2-667 support is a bit unusual....

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 14, 2004 6:43:21 AM

yeah i can see that i suppose, although i dont know how available ddr2 667 will be whne the intel chipset is out. Maybe all the memory comapines will try to force ddr1 out, but most likely not, intel will do most of the pushing. if the projected double price of ddr1 is true, is the performance going to really be worth the upgrade this year? I cna completely agree that next year is a different story, but i just dont see the need this year, even if its time in your upgrade cycle. spending 500-700 for 1gb of ddr2 ram wont be easily to swallow. still its a wait and see thing, no one can make a decision on this till we actaully see what intel presents, its all paper for now.
!