A64 4000+ In october

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

One potential advantage of the AMD 64's is the 64bit boost from the extra wider registers that will, whenever Winoze 64 comes out, more than offset any speed advantage of DD2. From what I have seen also the DDR2 is not advantageous now but may be at DDR 667 and probably at DD2 800 but until latencies drop it is better for AMD cpus to stay on DDR1. I wonder if JDEC would support a 233 or 250 DDR1 spec now with DD2 out. I doubt it. A 250 x 4 HTT at stock for the AMD's would be quite nice.

Also, remember that as the CPU's get faster the memory controller gets faster. The 6.4 PC 3200, theortically, will be nearly 100% around the 4400+ model or so I would imagine and if they raise it to 250 (no real reason with no real bandwidth advantage and higher latencies), than the memory would be probably around 7700 for dual channel. How much advantage, I don't know? Is DDR2 going to hurt AMD. Only in the marketing BS department. A very lucrative market though.

 

[bobbyk]

You are right. I am saying that intel does have the bandwidth advantage. It might not mean much, it might mean a lot. We don't know yet. I haven't seen a benchmark suite that compares amd's ddr 400 to intels ddr-2 533

I didn't mean kill amd with a better product. I meant that they could leverage amd out of the mainstream market. It is possible with a cash pile of nearly 20 billion and more than 75 percent of the market. I don't think they could get away with it, but they in possiblity could.

Amd doesn't need a lot of bandwidth right now. Intel does. It would hurt amd because of marketing. Intel can spin ddr-2 in everyway they want to for now. Just like amd does with hypertransport. Companies all do. But the ordinary consumer doesn't read anand forums or know that it really doesn't matter between ddr and ddr-2 currently. If dell and intel tell them that ddr-2 533 is higher clocked, they will be right. (it isn't better, but it is higher clocked.) consumers like to be told they are getting the best even if it isn't true. Most of them would never know the difference.

Also another point is that in two weeks since ddr-2 was released, companies are already pushing the jedec standard. In three months we might have like an equivalent to cas 2.5 ddr-2. Every time ddr-2 gets better intel gets better, but amd is on ddr.

I think by the time that it is big enough amd will make it, but the pr spin is going to hurt a little bit.

 

[ZobarStyl]

bobbyk, the computer un-initiatied are always going to buy Intel products because they quite frankly don't realize that there is another major processor manufacturer. That's not going to change, so that market isn't what's at stake here...the only thing AMD stands to lose from DDRII in the next few months is that the top performance crown might be taken from the FX series chips...but when it's taken by a 1100 dollar P4EE with madly expensive DDRII...it won't change anyone's minds...

I mean, marketing BS aside, how much more are DDRII modules worth just to TIE a similar DDR-I AMD solution? Right now on Newegg 2x 256 DDRII 533 (which offer no performance benefit over DDR-I; you need 667 for that) is 225 bucks...versus what, 100 bucks for the same DDR-I. When it costs over twice as much and still isn't winning, there's a problem. Combine that with the fact that the Intel chipset defects made the DDR-II manufacturers slow their output, and you are looking at even higher prices as a result from low availability. DDR-II is the future, no doubt; but it isn't going to be worth it for a while yet.

 

[BDSM]

I think that "ordinary ppl" are not only so stupid that they don't know the difference between ddr1 and 2. They are so stupid they don't know what ram is at all!

Intel probably fooled a few peeps with their netburst arciecture (high frequencies sound better) but not that many.. cuz most ppl look at price and features such as Webcams, printers or if the puter has a decent monitor much more than for perfromance at all.. And they ofcourse also look at the pricetag

My point is.. nobody cares about ddr1 vs ddr2 except us nerds.. And we are very few.

So Intel ain't got sh!t with ddr2 against amd now, or tomorrow!

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
How long do you think DDR2 will hang around before people go to DDR3?

If I were AMD, I'd probably just go straight for DDR3 from a technology standpoint,..

Now, here's a clever guy thinking...

 

[bobbyk]

It might seem like a good idea. I would say that amd would need to make sure that the technology is mature enough to migrate to. Amd cannot afford to make a mistake like intel did with their i915 & i925x.

It is possible though. The only other thing to point out is that graphics ddr is a little different than ddr. It get some partial heatsink cooling along with being on a 256 bit bus there. The real world performance will be less than graphics unless they move to a 256 bit bus. That would be a good idea.

I think it might be better though if they began work on chipsets or worked much more closely with nvidia or via or both of them. They need to have chipsets. That is where amd is hurting now.

 

[imported_infinity9]

From what I understand DDR2 will be more of a stepping stone for DDR3. I don't believe that DDR2 will contain the market for long if it even does. DDR3's biggest advantage will be the low voltages it can run at. DDR2 is actually an old spec now that was developed just after DDR1. DDR3 will be the next big ram. AMD may very likely hold off using DDR2 and go straight to DDR3. DDR2 is mainly a PR stunt by Intel to regain some publicity. DDR2 has yet to prove and real benefit and will not for some time, which is why its likely that the industry will not spend much effort (except Intel's biotch Dell) to adopt DDR2. Expect DDR2 to have a similar impact to Rambus. It will make a mark but not a big one. DDR3 is the future IMO.