Arh please, could have is a bad excuse. JEDEC set the demands too high for RAMBUS to accept it. And JEDEC members didnt have much interest in leapfrog memory performance. The DRAM cartel only wanted status quo to avoid having to change production lines. Low risk, high profit was all they wanted.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Personally I could care less what the JEDEC members did back then . . . I was too busy watching review sites pan RDRAM as being nearly useless for Pentium 3 systems.
More BS. RAMBUS wanted to sell RDRAM to everyone. AMD still got a RDRAM license today. SIS for example licensed it in 2001 as well.
SiS had several interesting licenses back in the day. AMD having an RDRAM license is news to me, though. Got a link?
What you defend is a criminal and convicted price cartel that not only hurt innovation but also technological progress.
Who's defending the JEDEC members? I'm not. I doubt it hurt innovation or technological progress by all that much, though, but it's all ancient history now.
Just because you saw yourself angry on Intel. And today we pay the price for it. We sit with huge bottlenecks and subpair memory technology. And DDR4 is a showcase on that the pee in the pants got cold now as well. GDDR is at its end too, and desperately hope for HBM/HMC etc to come soon. Since they only managed to double the bandwidth the last 6 years.
Actually, JEDEC memory specs have been a bit funny over the last 4-5 years. Yeah, we still have a lot of systems stuck on DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600, but you can actually go out and get DDR3-3000 if you want to pay for it. DDR3 has legs, it's just that the upper end of performance isn't being pushed that hard as a standard.
If AMD or Intel wanted to push DDR3-2133 as their standard for memory for all desktop PCs, the board manufacturers could handle it, the CPUs could handle it, and the DRAM manufacturers could probably supply it. It would take voltages above 1.5v in most cases, but it would work. I think the reason why AMD (for example) hasn't done that is the cost associated with using RAM of that kind.
Its the chicken and the egg. And we had the same with all previous new serial standards too. We get it before we need it. Yet you keep defend inferiour technology due to your personal issues with Intel.
But, that's the problem, AMD chips arguably never needed it, and Intel pretty much designed a CPU around it (which wound up on dual-channel DDR anyway, because it wound up being better than existing RDRAM).
Again you are completely wrong. Not to mention Slot A and Slot 1 are similar. What you refuse to accept is that companies and their CPU uarchs are simply too incompatible at this point. And too many sacrifices would have to be made to support the same socket. Intel for example used GTL+ while AMD used EV6 protocol.
And here I am kicking myself for not including
a link. Was Steve Ditlea wrong, all those years ago?
I remember right before Conroe officially launched, when Apple switched from PowerPC chips to x86 architecture, hearing that they had inked a deal with Intel and wondering WTF they were doing. At that moment AMD had far better overall performance and much better performance/watt. Of course, by the time the new Apple machines rolled off the line, they contained the shiny new C2D/Q chips and it all made much better sense.
It was kind of a shock, though you could sort of see it coming with all the Dothan overclocking and reports on Yonah. Yonah was a pretty good chip, all things considered. Not a Conroe, mind you, but it had its merits. In any case, you could tell that Intel had some serious non-Netburst stuff going on that looked pretty good.
Of course, once the Conroe ES samples were in the wild, getting benched, yeah it wasn't hard to understand that move by Apple at all.
This fanboyism I'll never understand. I have 0 brand loyalty on a PC.
Brand recognition and brand loyalty are big deals in marketing. It is not uncommon for people to continue buying a product from a particular vendor due to one or two positive experiences. It is also not uncommon for people to avoid a specific brand due to some negative experience. Rational thought factors into buying decisions less often than you might think.
I can sort of understand people buying AMD products to try and "keep competition alive", but to me, the only reason to adopt an AMD platform recently has been to tinker with something different or weird.