Yet another setback for AMD

[Intel_inside]

rambus is going to release 3.2ghz rdram, compared to the current 266mhz ddr-ram standard, this is 12x faster. Unless amd somehow signs a deal with rambus, it looks like their cpu's will be beat even worse in the latest benchmarks, because they will have 2 things against them: sse-2 and gigaherz speed ram. Then again, you can always try and support the weaker underdog.

 

[AMD_Man]

That RDRAM won't be released until 2004. By then, DDR will be old news and a new memory technology will probably emerge (QDR RAM perhaps)? Why is this a set back for AMD? AMD processors aren't the only processors that use DDR. P4 will use them too. SSE2 means nothing right now, and by the time it is used in many apps, the Hammer will be out to counteract Intel. AMD is, in every case, keeping up with and even exceeding Intel. I'm not AMD biased, I'm just conveying the truth. Intel_inside, do you even know what SSE2 is and what cache is? Do you understand the architectural differences are between Intel processors and AMD processors? If you do not, then I suggest you do some research before you make some wild claims about AMD. We need AMD as competition. If we don't have competition, then CPUs would still cost a fortune like they did a couple of years ago.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Crashman]

What a mature response from a self-proclaimed AMD man!

Back to you Tom...

 

[AMD_Man]

Hehe, I couldn't think of a better name at the time. Ohh well, I just don't like uneducated claims.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[LoveGuRu]

O, u didnt hear the news?
there is now ZDRAM-ZiloinDram, will only work on AMD coz for some reson it wont boot when INTEL is in..there have been some reports of a script that detacts on start up if there is an intel part in the mechine, after which it boots only if there is none.

while back on earth..can some 1 plz kill that moron, this aint getting any smarter..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>

 

[Ncogneto]

3.2 ghz is its bandwith not its operating frequency you dolt, thus making your claim of it being 12 times faster completly baseless. And what, you don't think DDR will evolve or improve at all between now and 2004 when your Rdram is released?

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!

 

[flamethrower205]

12x faster my ass....RDRAM is 16But, ddr is 64Bit. In a year we'll have QDR at 550MHz. Geuss what'll happen by 2004. Intel uses DDR also (I say this anyway, although it was mentioned).

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!

 

[rcf84]

Hmmmm.... i was hearing about MRAM.... Some technology that will replace the harddisk and RAM.... making it super fast and no more bottlenecks.... DRAM is going to die sometime i hope...

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... Yummy

 

[yellowood]

I believe MRAM's potential is in replacing flash memory, not necessarily good old DRAM. Current bottlenecks will be around for little while longer.



-----
It's a shame we have only one soul to sell...

 

[Unolocogringo]

Sorry but MRAM drives are available today. Although they are still small (3.2gig is the largest I've read about so far)and expensive($1200usd) As the technology evolves they will get bigger and faster. And one day will probably replace hard drive and memory as one unit.

I aint signing nothing!!!

 

[lhgpoobaa]

i personally dont care much for rambus and their "lets sue everone alive on the planet makeing ram" attitude.

i wonder how long it will be before we see QDR DRAM in our graphics cards and put into a Nforce like mobo?

lets see...
133mhz qdr = 533mhz = PC4266 x 2 = 8.5mb/sec.


Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.

 

[Raystonn]

i wonder how long it will be before we see QDR DRAM in our graphics cards and put into a Nforce like mobo?

lets see...
133mhz qdr = 533mhz = PC4266 x 2 = 8.5mb/sec.

Are there even plans for this? RDRAM should hit this level of bandwidth in the second half of next year with dual channel 32-bit-per-channel PC1066. Who is developing QDR? Regardless of what kind of memory technology it is, we do desperately need more bandwidth.

-Raystonn


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

 

[balzi]

"Then again, you can always try and support the weaker underdog."

So your saying that somewhere there's a third player out there who is beating AMD **AND** Intel which makes Intel and AMD both underdogs of which, according to you, AMD is the weaker. I apoligise for my concise English which may land beyond the understanding of some PC forum cyborg. (well he does unabashedly admit to being "Intel Inside", frankly I'm all organic)

also, LHGpoobaa, you meant 8.5GIGAbytes didnt' you.
How come that doesn't sound very high, what do you get these days??
and hte x2 in your equation, was that referring to dual channel on the nForce.

Balzi


"I spilled coffee all over my wife's nighty... ...serves me right for wearing it?!?"

 

[LoveGuRu]

your intel_inside arent u?

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>

 

[LoveGuRu]

Post deleted by LoveGuRu

 

[LoveGuRu]

rayson RDRAM is not same as DDR "just higher clocked", DDR is faster then RDRAM and costs less, wake up and smell the cofee stop being such an ass, your not convinsing any one here..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>

 

[zengeos]

Guru,

why are you attacking Ray?

I have never seen Ray be anything but polite on the CPU message boards and he has always been very accurate and fair, with a slight Intel bent (while I try to be fair with an AMD bent.

I don't see where Ray said anything that contradicts what you just said.

The main difference between the two memory types id RDRam offers more memory bandwidth, while DDR Ram offsets the higher bandwidth of RDRam with much lower latency.

Now we see DDR Ram coming out with more bandwiddth, RDRam with more bandwidth and improved latency (supposedly) so, both memory types are becoming more competetive with each other.

There's really no need to flame Ray over your differing opinions.

Mark-

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

 

[charliec2uk]

That number has the unit Hertz after it. What 3.2 Ghz RDRAM means that the memory is transferring data at 400MHz but 8 times per clock cycle or the same as if it were single data rate and was running a frequeny of 3.2 Ghz. The bandwidth of this memory is 6.4 Gbytes per second. (presuming it still uses the 16 bit interface, so it would be 4 times faster.

Democracy Bernad, it must be stopped!

 

[LoveGuRu]

he is trying to make the RDRAM as an advanced technology over the DDR and QDR and one who wouldnt know any better would take it as a fact.

even thogh im a big fan for AMD i dont go and trash INTEL 24/7, and i dont like ppl doing just the oposite about AMD.

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>

 

[zengeos]

I have not seen Ray trash AMD or AMD technology, other than presenting facts as they are available. Yes, Ray is an Intel advocate and thru that likely an RDRam advocate since that is what P4 uses for max performance.

But I don't see him trashing AMD or DDR or QDR at all. Asking who is working on it so he can get more information about it is NOT trashing it. Stating that RDRam is expected to have a particular bandwidth by a certain timeframe is not trashing AMD or non RDRam. It's just offering information as projected and publicly available.

Anyhow, no need to continue this I guess. It serves no purpose to argue over our mutual misunderstandings, ehh?

Mark-

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

 

[Crashman]

QDR sounds good, especially in video cards. In systems it presents a problem as to how many modules can be supported.

Back to you Tom...

 

[LoveGuRu]

i dont usually argue about these things but what the...
in response to Raysonn's post:

"Are there even plans for this?"

Yes.

"RDRAM should hit this level of bandwidth in the second half of next year with dual channel 32-bit-per-channel PC1066. Who is developing QDR? Regardless of what kind of memory technology it is, we do desperately need more bandwidth."

So what?who the hell would buy it then?no one is buying it now, Intel should say thanks to the P4x266 and the SDRAM supportive chipset, in my saying "wake uo and smell the cofee" i wasnt trying to trash you but to make you face the reallity, you dont see any OEM trying to make AMD support RDRAM do u?


<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>

 

[AmdMELTDOWN]

poobahaha, I hear AMD is looking for rambus engineers, I say rambus is coming full circle! rambus for you and I ahahahahahahaha!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

 

[FatBurger]

rayson RDRAM is not same as DDR "just higher clocked", DDR is faster then RDRAM and costs less, wake up and smell the cofee stop being such an ass, your not convinsing any one here..

Ok, let's compare current platforms. PC800 vs. PC2100
Oops, RDRAM wins, to the tune of 3.2 vs. 2.1

Alright then, let's compare current technology. Hah! DDR is only one channel, which means it's faster! No, wait...RDRAM is only using a 16-bit channel, which means it's faster again.

Ok, let's compare future plans. Nah, it would just come to the same result.


Face it, (as much as I don't want to admit it, since I've been arguing the other side for months), RDRAM is in position to go significantly past SDRAM.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>

 

[LoveGuRu]

damn it burger almost had him there!?

do u think i would argue by-"NO!DDR IS FASTER THEN RDRAM!"
bah, so sad *snif* and yet i still prefer DDR coz it has a nicer icon..
RDRAM on the other hand..


<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>