Why do the majority of people here like DDR better than RDRAM??

[JellyBaby]

Well, it looks like the RDRAM supporters have no case to make on "bang for the buck" IF you overclock. AND with the future of RDRAM in serious doubt, it seems (at least for a Ferengi like me) DDR is the ONLY way to.

RDRAM is a valid option but DDR is more valid.

And if you go DDR you can sleep easy at night knowing you didn't support Rambus, Inc. a company convicted of fraud and currently underneath even more scrutiny from the FTC who may hit it with antitrust action soon.

 

[apoppin]

And if you go DDR you can sleep easy at night knowing you didn't support Rambus, Inc. a company convicted of fraud and currently underneath even more scrutiny from the FTC who may hit it with antitrust action soon.

I could sleep just as well as with either system. I have an M$ O/S on my computer despite their antitrust violations.

It's the other "more practical" considerations that bother me - like cost/performance and bang for the buck along with future upgrading possibilities. If not, I would probably be considering AMD Thoroughbred instead of Intel's P4.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
apoppin, only memory benchmarks can really see the difference aside from the odd memory bandwidth-intensive game.

For instance, if you play 3D shooters using the Quake 3 engine, you may benefit slightly from RDRAM or OCed DDR. Otherwise the difference in performance is only theoretical. We're talking percentage increases in the single digits here and only in software that accesses memory a lot.

Well, it looks like the RDRAM supporters have no case to make on "bang for the buck" IF you overclock. AND with the future of RDRAM in serious doubt, it seems (at least for a Ferengi like me) DDR is the ONLY way to.

Thanks for helping to lay this to rest.

Well, i hope you're happy with your system, but calling the difference between a RDRAM system and a DDR system "theoretical" is pretty misguided I think. If you do any of the following, RDRAM will be noticably faster than DDR, at least in my experience:

1)Intensive 3d gaming. This one speaks for itself. Lots of games thrive on the extra "theoreticall" bandwith of RDRAM. Whether this is worth it is up to you. It will really be telling with next gen games though, as no ones care about 280 vs 300 FPS in quake 3 anymore. (Seethis article at Tom's for those numbers) You can also see here that the 850e scores about 52 fps in Commanche 4, which 845g and P4X333 score 48, which is almost a 10% difference. I think that's sizeable.

2)Photo Editing. Photoshop filters will be faster on the RDRAM based system, especially if you're working with large images.

3)Video Editing and Video Encoding. There are pretty major differences here also, IMO. When you're encoding a DivX movie that's going ot take 6 or 7 hours, a savings of 30 minutes is pretty good, I'd take it.

I'm sure there are other applications where there are differences, but these are the ones I use most, and where I see the most benefit from an RDRAM system in everyday use. Take it easy.

Kramer

 

[SteelCityFan]

... DDR333 costs less, runs cooler, and comes in a wider array of module sizes, I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would bother with RDRAM. Keep in mind that we're comparing a dual-channel architecture to a single-channel one as well, which makes DDR333 look even more spectacular. Once dual-channel DDR chipsets for the P4 arrive (particularly from Intel ), even PC1200 RDRAM (assuming it ever materializes) won't be competitive. Even with a 120mm fan mounted on each RIMM to keep cool

Hmm. I don't know what RDRAM you are talking about, but I am running my PC800 at PC900, and it is cool to the touch.

 

[SteelCityFan]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: SteelCityFanI also find it amusing that they (HardOCP) only benchmarked games using 640x480 which does not take much memory bandwidth. Of course they cover this by saying that they don't want the Video card affecting the results. However, since they are using the same card on each system, their statement defies logic, and is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

I don't get it. How come? Same video card, so the video card won't be the variable. Low resolutions... So video card fill rates won't be much of an issue. That leases - ram/chipset as the variable to benchmark, right? Am I missing something?

I think cmdrdredd is right, after looking at the benchies again. Get RDRAM if you just run Sandra all day.

By using the same video card, you cancel the need to run in low resolutions. All things are equal running at low res and all things are equal running at high res. If the only difference between the 3 systems tested is the chipset and memory type, then that is what will be the deciding factor in the tests. It was a nice cover for HardOCP that apparently some fell for. I revert back to my statement about HardOCP admittantly being biased against RDRAM from the start.

Running in low resolutions does not put any strain on the PC as a whole including the memory bandwidth of the system.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: SteelCityFan

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: SteelCityFanI also find it amusing that they (HardOCP) only benchmarked games using 640x480 which does not take much memory bandwidth. Of course they cover this by saying that they don't want the Video card affecting the results. However, since they are using the same card on each system, their statement defies logic, and is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

I don't get it. How come? Same video card, so the video card won't be the variable. Low resolutions... So video card fill rates won't be much of an issue. That leases - ram/chipset as the variable to benchmark, right? Am I missing something?

I think cmdrdredd is right, after looking at the benchies again. Get RDRAM if you just run Sandra all day.

By using the same video card, you cancel the need to run in low resolutions. All things are equal running at low res and all things are equal running at high res. If the only difference between the 3 systems tested is the chipset and memory type, then that is what will be the deciding factor in the tests. It was a nice cover for HardOCP that apparently some fell for. I revert back to my statement about HardOCP admittantly being biased against RDRAM from the start.

Running in low resolutions does not put any strain on the PC as a whole including the memory bandwidth of the system.

I think this is an innacurate analysis of what HardOCP does. When you push things to high res, all things are not all equal, because the video card may have reached its limit. For example, lets say you have a XP2000+ and a P4 2.53GHz (this is only an example, please don't start another AMD/Intel flame war based on this EXAMPLE). If you run them both at 1600x1200 on a Geforce3, then they will both have something like 100fps because the video card cannot physically push anything more than that no matter how fast the CPU/Memory subsytem is. The video card's limitation makes it look like the CPUs are the same speed, when in reality, the P4 should be faster. When you run something at a lower resolution, the limitation of video card fillrate is elimiated, and the ONLY thing that can effect the FPS is the CPU/Memory combo.

Kramer

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
apoppin, only memory benchmarks can really see the difference aside from the odd memory bandwidth-intensive game.

For instance, if you play 3D shooters using the Quake 3 engine, you may benefit slightly from RDRAM or OCed DDR. Otherwise the difference in performance is only theoretical. We're talking percentage increases in the single digits here and only in software that accesses memory a lot.

Well, it looks like the RDRAM supporters have no case to make on "bang for the buck" IF you overclock. AND with the future of RDRAM in serious doubt, it seems (at least for a Ferengi like me) DDR is the ONLY way to.

Thanks for helping to lay this to rest.

Well, i hope you're happy with your system, but calling the difference between a RDRAM system and a DDR system "theoretical" is pretty misguided I think. If you do any of the following, RDRAM will be noticably faster than DDR, at least in my experience:

1)Intensive 3d gaming. This one speaks for itself. Lots of games thrive on the extra "theoreticall" bandwith of RDRAM. Whether this is worth it is up to you. It will really be telling with next gen games though, as no ones care about 280 vs 300 FPS in quake 3 anymore. (Seethis article at Tom's for those numbers) You can also see here that the 850e scores about 52 fps in Commanche 4, which 845g and P4X333 score 48, which is almost a 10% difference. I think that's sizeable.

2)Photo Editing. Photoshop filters will be faster on the RDRAM based system, especially if you're working with large images.

3)Video Editing and Video Encoding. There are pretty major differences here also, IMO. When you're encoding a DivX movie that's going ot take 6 or 7 hours, a savings of 30 minutes is pretty good, I'd take it.

I'm sure there are other applications where there are differences, but these are the ones I use most, and where I see the most benefit from an RDRAM system in everyday use. Take it easy.

Kramer

I don't have my system yet . . . I a WAITING to order it (this week, I hope).

You did bring up some good points. Does any DDR supporter have a reply? Your rig looks nice!

 

[oldfart]

P4 on an 850 RDRAM
P4 on an 845 DDR RAM

Its all good!
Be happy!

 

[fkloster]

A very good 'clock for clock' analysis for people who don't get it that 'clock for clock' doesn't mean squat.

"A fictional army (Red army) consists of 40 soldiers that are tough enough to kill 60 enemy soldiers. Another fictional army (Blue army) consists of 80 soldiers that are tough enough to kill 40 enemy soldiers. When the armys fight, which one would win?"

Point is, regardless of how efficiant the red army is, IT LOSES THE WAR!!

1) The Red Army (AMD) is tougher than the Blue Army (Intel) on a man for man (clock for clock) basis....but

2) The Red Army doesn't have as much 'man-power' (mhz) as the Blue Army

 

[apoppin]

I started another thread in CPU/O'Cing yesterday

They linked me to this Anand Review from last month. Anand conlcuded:

The 850E with PC1066 RDRAM is still the highest performing solution for the Pentium 4; however the performance advantage isn't too incredibly significant (generally under 10%). This keeps the 850E from being the most economical solution for the Pentium 4 but it is the best performing.

Now aided by the forum guys' advice I concluded:

1) Anand didn't consider O/C'ing the DDR memory spec to DDR "400" which should put the DDR system to within 5% or less of a PC1066 system.

2) I can't afford PC 1066 but would have to depend on O/C'ing PC 800 (which would drop RD RAM's advantage even further.

Any flaws in this reasoning? Any reviews that compare "DDR 400" to PC1066? My credit card is almost out of my wallet . . .

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: SteelCityFanBy using the same video card, you cancel the need to run in low resolutions. All things are equal running at low res and all things are equal running at high res. If the only difference between the 3 systems tested is the chipset and memory type, then that is what will be the deciding factor in the tests. It was a nice cover for HardOCP that apparently some fell for. I revert back to my statement about HardOCP admittantly being biased against RDRAM from the start.

Running in low resolutions does not put any strain on the PC as a whole including the memory bandwidth of the system.

The machine will put out the maximum fps it can, assuming you disable vsync. There's no more "strain" on the PC at high vs low resolutions because the machine will max out whatever resources are available to it as best it can. Look at it this way - at low res with video card not being much of a factor there is no theorethical cap to fps, but at high res, you'll hit that cap at some relatively low framerates, and those will be similiar from platform to platform because it is the video card thats the limitation. Just as SexyK says:

You want to see the memory/chipset as the limiting component, so you can see which platform has a higher framerate limit. If you run high res tests, they will be limited as a direct result of the video card, and at best, a secondary limit of the platform. Low res takes the video out of the equation somewhat.


And OCP gave a pretty good review of the RDRAM system, so stop dogging them.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I started another thread in CPU/O'Cing yesterday

They linked me to this Anand Review from last month. Anand conlcuded:

The 850E with PC1066 RDRAM is still the highest performing solution for the Pentium 4; however the performance advantage isn't too incredibly significant (generally under 10%). This keeps the 850E from being the most economical solution for the Pentium 4 but it is the best performing.

Now aided by the forum guys' advice I concluded:

1) Anand didn't consider O/C'ing the DDR memory spec to DDR "400" which should put the DDR system to within 5% or less of a PC1066 system.

2) I can't afford PC 1066 but would have to depend on O/C'ing PC 800 (which would drop RD RAM's advantage even further.

Any flaws in this reasoning? Any reviews that compare "DDR 400" to PC1066? My credit card is almost out of my wallet . . .

I'd say so. But look at the numbers in the benchies... Can you tell the difference between 8 FPS if its 292 vs 284? I can't even tell the difference between 60 and 68. My point is, the difference between PC333 DDR and Pc1066 is... marginally negligible if not entirely so. Except of course for Sandra, and we know how important that is...

 

[fkloster]

) Anand didn't consider O/C'ing the DDR memory spec to DDR "400" which should put the DDR system to within 5% or less of a PC1066 system.

He also didn't think of OC'ing the PC-1066 system...lol it doesn't matter though, u have your heart set on DDR, JUST BUY IT!!! Then we can get back to explaining how rdram p4's are faster than DDR p4's...

 

[apoppin]

He also didn't think of OC'ing the PC-1066 system...lol it doesn't matter though, u have your heart set on DDR, JUST BUY IT!!! Then we can get back to explaining how rdram p4's are faster than DDR p4's...

You are forgetting that - unlike you - I am on a tight budget. I can't afford PC1066 (period). There is zero advantage of PC800 over PC333 run at at 400 spec. The most I can ever hope for is "PC900".

And I have always been willing to settle for second best as long as it is a close second.

And I did NOT have my heart set on DDR until no one in the RD RAM camp could show it to be as cost effective as DDR.

 

[fkloster]

There is zero advantage of PC800 over PC333 run at at 400 spec. The most I can ever hope for is "PC900".

Why the hell is that? My ram (PC-800) run only luke warm @ PC-1066 and would easily go higher if my mobo supported higher fsb freq...I don't understand why you would only get PC-900?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: fkloster

There is zero advantage of PC800 over PC333 run at at 400 spec. The most I can ever hope for is "PC900".

Why the hell is that? My ram (PC-800) run only luke warm @ PC-1066 and would easily go higher if my mobo supported higher fsb freq...I don't understand why you would only get PC-900?

That's what I have noticed in most of the RDRAM O/Cs. I can only repeat what I have heard here (and there). And then you mentioned O/C'ing PC1066 so I assumed (wrongly, it turns out).

My heart is still NOT set on anything but a 1.6a P-4 that I plan to O/C as far as possible. I will have to say the DDR supporters (here) are a bit more vocal in offering support and links to their reasons for choosing it over RDRAM.

And thank-you all for taking the time to offer your ideas.

 

[JellyBaby]

Is nitpicking over the memory subsystem really worth it? You're focusing on one small part of the performance picture and on top of that arguing over speed differences that aren't perceivable with the human eye for 95% of the tasks you'll use your PC for. It ain't worth it.

I putzed quite a bit with overclocking my memory bus, making use of the DDR memory/FSB ratio settings in my BIOS. Yes, I could run the DDR a bit faster but didn't notice any speed gain in apps and games. Benchmarks were the only clue I was going "faster". So I settled on a synchronous 1:1 ratio.

My 1.6A does 2.4 at stock voltage but I actually run at 2.2. Why? Because when I went to 2.4 I noticed only a coma-inducing one frame per second performance increase in CPU-limited games. So I dropped back to 2.2 to keep all system components closer to spec. I knows that's considered a crime against humanity by many here, but geez people, benchs aren't everything!

Get DDR. Or get RDRAM if the folks here convinced you. Like I said either memory type will run 95% of your software at exactly the same perceivable speed.

 

[Dug]

So you can have that for $50 more. you could probably find better deals on the motherboard and rambus also, i just threw this together. you can most likely hit 160MHz FSB with a 3x RDRAM ratio on this set up, and it will smoke the pants off the DDR.

According to Tom DDR333 falls right inbetween PC800 and PC1066 speeds.
So how does running at 3x (PC960) smoke DDR?
Especially if you add in that you can now run at DDR400.

Maybe it does beat DDR but I hardly suspect that it will smoke the pants off it.

If you want a solid performing no risk solution apoppin, just toss a coin

Since your talking specifically about a 1.6a, you have to ask yourself-
Do you want a 1.6 to run at 133fsb giving you 2.1Ghz 1066 on a rdram system.
Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but
If you go a higher fsb with this you will probably have to run at 3x on the ram.
And how well will the agp and pci handle the higher fsb? Some boards lock the agp and pci though.

Or do you want a 1.6 to run at 150-170 fsb with whatever speed you can squeeze out of your ram?

Either way you can't go wrong. I just think if you like to tweak and squeeze more Mhz out of your chip, you would be better off with the DDR. More options to play with too, like manually adjusting your agp and pci speeds.

If you want to play it safe I would get the rdram system. Especially if you want to stay around 133fsb which gives you the fastest system you can get at that fsb. 133fsb chips will be around for a long time.

 

[JackBurton]

How is this for bang for your buck...Asus new P4T533 will be using RIMM4200 memory (32bit PC1066). Now here is the kicker, from what I've read, it will be released with 512MB of RIMM4200 (single stick I believe) and it should be selling for ~$300!! Now if you ask me, $300 for a bad ass mobo and 512MB of RIMM4200 is a DAMN good deal! I was planning to buy an Asus P4B533-V mobo (~$145) and a 512MB stick of Mushkin Hi Perf Level 2 PC2100 ($199 today). I chose this memory because I was planning to run a 1.6A @ 2.4GHz+ with the MOST aggressive timings. This memory is good for ~190MHz FSB with SUPER aggresive memory timings. If you add it up, it is more expensive than the RDRAM based set up, and the RIMM4200 is good for at least 150MHz FSB (PC1200 speeds). And at PC1200 speeds, a P4 will show some VERY nice speed boasts and at a cost less than a top end DDR set up. You really can't go wrong with either (DDR or RDRAM), but I just like to get every ounce of power out of my chips, and for that, RDRAM is the better solution.

 

[Dug]

How is this for bang for your buck...Asus new P4T533 will be using RIMM4200 memory (32bit PC1066). Now here is the kicker, from what I've read, it will be released with 512MB of RIMM4200 (single stick I believe) and it should be selling for ~$300!!

When is it out? I want it. I've heard of this $300 price, but I didn't know it was confirmed.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

well, i got my whole cpu+mobo+ram setup for $300. Mind you i have 512 MB of pc 2700 samsung runnin close to ddr 400 right now with some aggressive memory timings hitting close to 3000 in sandra. So its up to you if you want that extra little bit of performance.

 

[Soccerman]

imgod2uThe Athlon is not memory-starved, not at 1.67ish GHz anyway. Memory bandwidth requirements are directly releated to how many instructions are fetched per second and how many instructions the CPU works on at any given time. For the Athlon, that's 10 integer instructions at any given time (once the integer pipeline is filled up) and x86's fundamental limitation of 3 instruction fetches per clock. At 1.67 GHz, that's not a lot of strain on the memory bandwidth.
The P4 fetches 3 x86 instructions per cycle as well and works on 20 integer instructions at any given time (assuming the pipeline is filled). At 2.0 GHz or 2.2 GHz, that's a big strain on memory. So in other words, it is much more memory starved.

bah.. that's a good explaination, but for some reason it seems wrong. if we are comparing say the Athlon XP 2000+ with the original P4 @ 2ghz which both perform close to each other, than I'd have to disagree, because while the P4 is feeding new micro-chunks of an x86 instructions (the so called micro-op) at a higher rate, the same amount of x86 work is being done.. at least, that's evidenced by the fact that the XP 2000+ does well against the P4 2.0 ghz.

now show me anandtechs' comparison with a similar % speed increase in FSB and RAM mhz.. does he have one? I think not. the P4 got a much larger boost in speed % wise with the FSB and RAM. 100mhz to 133mhz is a larger % step than 133-166.

at any rate, he doesn't use a memory bandwidth hungry application, except with the memory bandwidth synthetic test. how about Quake 3? we all know that shows a large performance increase when the CPU gets what it needs. RTCW I know acts differently than Quake 3, and I don't have a clue how Unreal performance test 2002 reacts to more bandwidth. notice however MPeg4 encoding goes up, while MP3 encoding does not. that must mean that the fsb and RAM are not limiting the MP3 encoding process.

2 guys are in a library. They have to read a certain set of books. One person walks slow and can't find books as fast, but once he finds the book he can read it very fast. The other person runs like Forrest Gump and can find any book pretty fast, but once he finds it, he looks at the pictures first and then tries to read it. If these two were sent to read an encyclopedia set of 20 books. Even though Forrest can find it first, he's stuck there reading it slowly word by word while brainiac there will finish reading the set in record time. In this case, brainiac would finish reading first. If, on the other hand, they were sent to read 50 different, completely unrelated pages in 30 different, completely unrelated books. Forrest would finish first.
The speed at which one reads books would be the bandwidth. The MB/sec. The speed at which one finds a book would be the latency. A lower latency does not make a faster bandwidth, but rather, a faster completion of a job if the job was just reading small bits of data. A higher latency, but high bandwidth solution would be able to read and write huge amounts of information in no time, but if it were to only write small bits of data at different times (write one bit, wait a while, read one bit, read a while) and the overall job will be done slowly.
Rambus would be the brainiac, SDRAM would be Forrest. This is where prefetch comes in. Say you knew you had to read bits of data in short sessions later on while you were working on something. Instead of fetching them from memory when needed, you load the neccessary ones onto the cache all at once. This would mean you're not searching, opening and transfering a small bit of data but a large piece of data (or rather, the total combined of all the small bits). This would make a job go much faster.
Bandwidth simply means the speed at which data can be transfered once it was found. Bandwidth benchmarks are based on transfering streams of data. Latency is another aspect which affects performance and is separate from bandwidth

good analogy, except that DDR SDRAM's max burst rate (2.7 gigs/second with PC2700) isn't that much lower than PC3200 (though it's definately lower with PC4200). so while it would take your forrest to read twice as long (as is the case with PC4200), the benefit the brainiac has over forrest isn't quite as good as you would hope. just take a look

and for those of you debating about going to DDR for a P4 or RDRAM, it's quite simple. if you want a quick cheap(er) overclocking solution, DDR works, and becuase you're overclocking your DDR SDRAM, you have the potential to hit the same scores that at least can be accomplished with PC800 at default. now if you should choose to go the RDRAM route, it may be more expensive (I don't know I don't have access to the real high end DDR SDRAM) than DDR SDRAM, but it depends on how high you'll be running you RAM at (in my area, CAS 3 PC2700 DDR SDRAM is $160 for 512 megs, CANADIAN). if you plan on hitting 1066 speeds don't skimp on the RAM quality, and you'll get the performance that DDR overclockers won't get until DDR 400 becomes more available.

btw there's an interesting thread on Beyond3D about why RDRAM hasn't ever been used for video cards. most of the people there are as clueless as us about the technicalities (like WHY does it have this amount of latency etc) but some of them at least think they know...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
How is this for bang for your buck...Asus new P4T533 will be using RIMM4200 memory (32bit PC1066). Now here is the kicker, from what I've read, it will be released with 512MB of RIMM4200 (single stick I believe) and it should be selling for ~$300!! Now if you ask me, $300 for a bad ass mobo and 512MB of RIMM4200 is a DAMN good deal! I was planning to buy an Asus P4B533-V mobo (~$145) and a 512MB stick of Mushkin Hi Perf Level 2 PC2100 ($199 today). I chose this memory because I was planning to run a 1.6A @ 2.4GHz+ with the MOST aggressive timings. This memory is good for ~190MHz FSB with SUPER aggresive memory timings. If you add it up, it is more expensive than the RDRAM based set up, and the RIMM4200 is good for at least 150MHz FSB (PC1200 speeds). And at PC1200 speeds, a P4 will show some VERY nice speed boasts and at a cost less than a top end DDR set up. You really can't go wrong with either (DDR or RDRAM), but I just like to get every ounce of power out of my chips, and for that, RDRAM is the better solution.

Interesting. Is there an ETA?

 

[JackBurton]

When is it out? I want it. I've heard of this $300 price, but I didn't know it was confirmed.

I believe the date is early to mid July. In other words, VERY soon.

 

[NinjaGnome]

at least we can all agree that ddr is the best bang for the buck option right now.