Why is there no Rambus platform for AMD???

[ezeenomad]

I just built my first AMD system, XP2000 GA7vrxp, 1GB PC 2100, its pretty spank.

Just wondering, why are there no RDRAM boards for the AMD chip? Are there and Im just missing it or whats the deal?

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Because Rambus sucks

 

[Spitfire_x86]

The real reason is AXP's don't benefit from anything more than 2.1 GB/s . So DDR is enough for Athlon and lower latency of DDR compared to Rambus makes it worthless for AXP's.

 

[camieabz]

So Rambus sucks & ECS sucks.

You criticise plenty and offer no help. Are you just bored?

<b><font color=blue>~ BIOS SETTINGS: Fast, Hot, Unstable...That ought to work. ~</font color=blue></b>

 

[Yahiko81]

I thought the reason was cause of licensing with Intel.

<b>Agent</b> <b><font color=green>81</b></font color=green>

 

[deadkenny]

Good point, licensing might have put off anyone even considering it. However, as previously mentioned, the Athon wouldn't benefit from the additional bandwidth, and would be hurt by the increased latency. With Intel itself moving away from RDRAM, why would anyone want to try to put it together with an AMD processor?

 

[Dinski]

yahiko81 is right. The licence.
Another possible reason is the AMD-platform is designed for cheaper PC systems. Anywaym RAMBUS is a good idea for the professional machines.
The suggestions and speculations that AMD don't need RAMBUS because........ are just funny. I would like to remember the older Pentiums running with 840 and even 820 chipsets (there are lots of bugs, but it's an Intel's problem, not a RAMBUS') - even the older RAMBUS running at lower FSB was in some cases faster.

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[Crashman]

It's the bandwidth thing, and the price. AMD processors don't need 3200-4200MB/s bandwidth in stock trim. And chipset are not designed for overclockers, they are adapted to them, so overclocking the bus speed to the point that you need the extra bandwidth is not a consideration of chipmakers. Add to that the DDR is cheaper and has lower real time latency.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had asked more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[upec]

P3 running with RDRAM is slower in most of the cases. The benchmarks are comparing RDRAM with SDRAM.

 

[Mordy]

AMD have the license for RDRAM. If you check the numbers, you will find that DDR is faster. If you check the benchies , you will come to the conclusion that there is no real reason to make mobos that expensive - dual channel + more expensive memory = -$$$$$$ and same performance.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

No!

Rambus and ECS really sucks.

Rambus is bad for using with AMD processors. It would be same for P4 if any dual channel DDR chipset for P4 existed.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

The best way to fix problem with ECS mobos is returning them to the store from which the mobo was bought.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

Bump

*points* you're biased

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Quetzacoatl]

So, Rambus sucks because it offers Intel the best performance for the Pentium 4 with Pc-1066? You haven't said one thing yet that shows any sign of reasonable intelligence. Give everyone a break already...sheesh

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[WingDing]

...be kind...he's only a journeyman......he'll learn....

I'm very good
at licking my wood

 

[tbirdXPplus]

AMD said something about "building powerful, but inexpensive PCs" is their strategy. if so, RAMBUS is not cheap, so this may be the andswer.

and also, DDR is pretty much good as rambus. a single channel rambus pc800 has the bandwidth of a pc1600(a DDR200), so rambus isn`t really superior to DDR. why p4`s 850 chipset has a large memory bandwidth is because they use dual channels, but so does nFORCE, so in this case, rambus still isn`t superior.

anyway, the AMD CPUs have a pinpoint FSB bandwidth(2.1GB/sec), so anything faster than that doesn`t really help. the DDR266 is goood enough. situation changes when u overclock FSB.

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Intelligent?

Lower latency of DDR makes it better than Rambus if the memory bandwidths are equal.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

Duh, but currently RDR has and will have greater total memory bandidth for the time being. Even with DC DDR, RDR can scale a bit further. Look at Prescott, it requires a 800Mhz FSB, which means more memory bandwidth to feed the Pentium 4. Latency won't matter at that point

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Example:

DDR400@SiS648 is better than PC800 RDRAM@i850. It would be same if any i845 chipset that supports DDR400 existed.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Dual channel DDR400 will provide sufficient memory bandwidth to Prescott.

Then lower latency will make it better than RDRAM.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

Uhm, you should be comparing the Sis 648 to Pc-1066, which offers the Pentium 4 4.2Gb/s, versus the 3.2Gb/s for Pc-800. You're ignoring the fact that RDR still outperforms ALL DDR chipsets currently at Pc-1066 speeds.

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Quetzacoatl]

*shakes head* too bad it doesn't exist, and isn't planned. The first Intel DC DDR chipset is going to be Granitebay, which only provides DC PC-2100 and PC-2700, only 4.2Gb/s and 5.4Gb/s respectively.

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I was always trying to compare DDR and RDRAM @same bandwidth.

DDR533 modules are reality. If any P4 chisets supported them it would outperform RDR 1066, it's doubtless.

i845 seems better than SiS648. It would beat i850e if it supported DDR400

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I am talking about theoritical possibility. If were practical, I would bring the price point.

Performance difference between SiS 648 and i850e are 100% theoritical. Practically, nobody will notice any performance difference between SiS648 and i850e.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

There is no such thing as a validated DDR 533Mhz module yet. Even the 400Mhz models aren't true 400Mhz, but 166Mhz models overclocked. JEDEC hasn't approved the 400Mhz DDR for mainstream use yet until the technology develops further, which may not exist till DDR-II even. The fact remains, RDR Pc-1066 offers the best performance.

I was always trying to compare DDR and RDRAM @same bandwidth.

that is like trying to compare the Athlon and the Pentium 4, both using Pc-266 DDR. Then, the Athlon would be much more competative, but the Pentium 4 wouldn't have it's full potential tapped.



"When there's a will, there's a way."