8.4GB/s of memory bandwidth next year

[Raystonn]

According to <A HREF="http://www.rdram.com/pdfs/RDRAM for DTop ÉWP0003_V100.pdf" target="_new">http://www.rdram.com/pdfs/RDRAM for DTop ÉWP0003_V100.pdf</A> (page 5), we will see "4.2GB/s using PC1066 RDRAM memory on a 32-bit module (RIMM4200) in 2002." With current dual-channel RDRAM chipsets, this will provide a total of 8.4GB/s for your bandwidth-hungry processors as soon as next year.

We will also be seeing 19.2GB/s of memory bandwidth in 2004 utilizing PC1200 RDRAM memory on a 64-bit module for 9.6GB/s per channel (RIMM9600). I'd love to see the performance of this one!

(Some information for the muggles/laymen/non-techies: As a comparison current Pentium 4 systems coupled with PC800 RDRAM on a 16-bit module provide 3.2GB/s of total memory bandwidth with 2 modules/channels. Current Athlon systems coupled with PC2100 DDR SDRAM on a 64-bit module provide 2.1GB/s of total memory bandwidth using one module/channel.)

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[Guest]

Impressive to say the least.

AMD and Co' better get a move on.

<font color=purple>Three ways to do things, your way, my way and the right way!</font color=purple>

 

[zengeos]

Ray are they going to do anything to improve the latency issues?

High bandwidth is no big deal if latency is bad.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!

 

[Matisaro]

Nice, but its a whole year away, I would like to see where ddr/qdr ram is at that time.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~

 

[FatBurger]

Latency isn't as bad as you might think, it'll just take some time for the memory controllers to get better so they can take advantage of RDRAM's different latency.

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>

 

[Guest]

read the memory article at aces...

latency seems to get better with rdram as the clock speed increases.

also qdr-sdram may never see the light of day.

i had a drink the other day... opinions were like kittens i was givin' away

 

[killall]

4.2 is including the dual channel... just like pc 2100 will be with the nforce... then pc 2400 and 2700 coming out soon... giving 4.8 and 5.4... oh well...

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[Raystonn]

No, 4.2GB/s will be with a single module, which means a single channel on the motherboard. A dual channel implementation brings it up to 8.4GB/s. Read the pdf. Additionally, nForce only offers the same 2.1GB/s of memory bandwidth to the CPU. Read the specs.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[killall]

sorry forgot about the 32 bit modules instead of 16...

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[Makaveli]

I've seen the specs and Nforce will offer 2.1 GB/s of bandwidth to the Cpu. Also from what i've seen current athlon doesn't use as much bandwidth as the p4 anyways. But I do believe Nforce will be just as fast or faster than a i850 board. Well for memory intestive applications!

 

[Guest]

You find me a processor that can eat 19.2Gb per second and then i'll be interested.

Quite frankly Dual channel QDR should be just fine with me.

Oh and RDRAM.... <pheeeeeeew>

<font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel

 

[Raystonn]

"I do believe Nforce will be just as fast or faster than a i850 board. Well for memory intestive applications!"

An i850 board gets 3.2GB/s of bandwidth. An nForce chipset board gets 2.1GB/s of bandwidth for the CPU. I fail to see how nForce could get performance anywhere near an i850.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[Guest]

Nforce offers 2.1GB/s per channel, of which it has two. Therefore the yeild is 4.2Gb/s which is higher than the i850. YAAAY!

<font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel

 

[FatBurger]

Except that an Athlon can only use 2.1GB/s. Use dual channel DDR on a P4 (or a different, future processor), and you'll have better results.

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>

 

[Guest]

I don't think that's quite accurate...
300(150x2)x8=2.4gb/s

<font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel

 

[FatBurger]

Where'd you get the 150 from?

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>

 

[Guest]

OC system

<font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel

 

[Raystonn]

Please read the specifications for nForce. It offers 2.1GB/s of memory bandwidth to the processor over the frontside bus. The rest of the bandwidth either remains unused or is used for the other components in your system such as an integrated video chipset. Those of you who continue to use an addon video card will not see much of a benefit from this chipset.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[Raystonn]

"Quite frankly Dual channel QDR should be just fine with me."

QDR, which we may never see in PC systems, would double the bandwidth of DDR. Both DDR SDRAM and DRDRAM use DDR technology. If QDR is developed it will be a viable technology for both SDRAM and DRDRAM. Dual channels would double the bandwidth of the memory system and require twice as much room on the motherboard, as well as forcing RAM to be installed in pairs. This is currently implemented in the i850 DRDRAM chipset, but not for any DDR SDRAM chipset as of yet.

Putting these two technologies together as a QDR form of SDRAM would give you 8.4GB/s running on a 133MHz external clock. Putting these two technologies together as a QDR form of DRDRAM would give you 19.2GB/s with a 32-bit module (available next year) or 38.4GB/s with a 64-bit module (available in 2004) running on a 133MHz external clock. An external clock increase would benefit both.

I do not foresee SDRAM, even in a DDR or QDR form, being able to keep up.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[FatBurger]

Right, and you think nVidia and AMD use overclocked systems to make their specifications? Think before you speak

Besides, why 150? I've seen Athlon systems at almost 180, why don't you use that? Or how about if someone modded their motherboard to give a 10-pumped bus? Then we could say that at a 1330 bus speed, there is 10.6GB/s of bandwidth, or 21.2GB/s in a dual-channel system.

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>

 

[Raystonn]

"how about if someone modded their motherboard to give a 10-pumped bus"

I will get right on it!

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[lhgpoobaa]

whats your opinion on DDRII and QDR?

personally ive got a thing against Rambus, and thus RDRAM.
mostly cauz of the way intel tried to force it upon us with the p3's & the i840/820. and the way rambus has behaved as a company.
i havnt heard much lately... how IS the piles of litigation and cross litigation going for them?


In memory of the 90+ Auzzies missing in the WTC disaster. An attack that has changed the world.

 

[Raystonn]

DDR-II, available in 2003, offers 4.3GB/s of bandwidth per channel. If one couples that with a dual channel chipset, one could achieve 8.6GB/s of bandwidth. However, it looks to be a case of too little too late. By that time we will have RDRAM that supplies 9.6GB/s per channel, offering us 19.2GB/s with a dual channel chipset.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[zengeos]

Ray memory bandwidth is only one aspect of performance...just as FPU performance is only one aspect, etc...I could care less what a single part of a system's performance is as long as the overall system performs well. So, as we've seen, even with nearly double the memory bandwidth of the P4 and RDRam, Athlon systems still significantly outperform the P4 as far as bang for buck.

nForce brings an interesting new twist to chipset design; that of truly distributed processing. Whether it will actually provide significant performance increase over other Athlon/DDR based boards is unsure, other than based on previews which don't offer clear benchmarks (read none) and even then those previews were based on early sample motherboards.

So, only time will tell whether the overall nForce chipset provides the significant performance increase for Athlons or not...and at what price. The same goes for RDRam improvements. As you yourself have pointed out on other threads...we won't know until we have benchmarks.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!

 

[Schmide]

If Rambus had a good reputation and if it was possible would any of you guys buy an RDram Athlon system?

Schmide