Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the finally-moving-forward dept.
jandrese writes "According to Cnet, Intel is finally getting around to supporting DDR SDRAM in their P4 chipsets. This is a good move on Intel's part, as they need to bring the cost of their P4 based systems down to compete with AMD, and moving away from Rambus is a good start."
Patents kill your tech off!
by
Jucius+Maximus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The patent drove the cost of DDR RAM up so much relative to competing technologies that the tech died. Perhaps this will be a lesson for other companies that want to patent something in a world where there are alternatives.
I wanted to illustrate the similarities between this and Sony's patent related to Beta videocasette tapes, but it would have been sure to result in a flamewar.
Re:Patents kill your tech off!
by
MrResistor
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The patent drove the cost of DDR RAM up so much relative to competing technologies that the tech died.
I'm hoping you meant to say RDRAM.
Anyway, the patents had nothing to do with the price differences between RDRAM and DDR SDRAM, it was all due to manufacturing costs. I remember a little over a year ago Kingston was bragging about their 30%(!) yield on PC-800 RDRAM chips. When 70+% of your product doesn't pass QA, that's definately going to drive your costs up! Additionally, manufacturers had a fair amount of retooling to do before they could make RDRAM, and high setup costs get passed on to the consumer. As I recall, RDRAM also has a bigger die size than DDR SDRAM (I could easily be wrong, it's been a while since I cared) which would also drive up costs.
In contrast, DDR SDRAM only required modifications to existing SDRAM tooling, and since the SDRAM manufacturing processes had been pretty much perfected already yield was high from the get-go.
Rambus' royalties on RDRAM were actually pretty low. I don't remember what they were, but I remember it being under 3%.
-- Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
DDR has better latency
by
nusuth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And it is latency that usually counts, peak transfer rate is not sustainable anyway. A dual channel DDR-SDRAM platform would be faster than dual channel RDRAM platform, single channel ddrs are already competing with dual channel rdrams. With 166*2MHz DDRs on the horizon, I think it is a very sensible solution.
--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Rambus - now even more obsolete!
by
nyquist_theorem
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's unfortunate that Rambus RIMMs are even more obsolete now that Intel's new chipsets are going to DDR. Not that I'll miss them, but its always unfortunate when early adopters get hosed with proprietary hardware. Anyone remember the Socket 4 P60/P66? Drop a ton of money on the new Pentium, and watch while everyone who waited is able to upgrade while you can't. Ditto to those with Asus P4Ts - not only are they hosed on processor options because intel changed pinouts for the new P4s, but now the RAM is obsolete too.
From the article: Intel is planning the stealth introduction of a chipset that will let computer makers connect the Pentium 4 to speedy DDR (double data rate) memory.
Speedy? Isn't DDR-SDRAM slower than RDRAM? Sounds a bit fluffy to me. What they really mean, but don't clearly spell out, is that DDR is faster than the normal SDRAM the 845 supports. But its still no RDRAM. Which I guess everyone here knew anyways.
Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to upgrade it. (I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)
-- --
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
We've all seen the THG memory bandwidth benchmarks that show RIMMS are still way ahead of DDR DIMMS in terms of bandwidth. The CPU, well that's another story, but nonetheless Intel is not taking back what they've said, they're simply offering another choice to consumers, which is a good thing. I don't think we should critisize them for offering up a system with "slightly" lower performance. How rare is it, when a company has been forced (a la AMD and VIA) to offer more choices for the increasingly price/performance consious consumers? Pour a cold one for the little guy.
Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this?
by
$carab
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Interesting Point, but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM right now. However, once the Northwood gets released in a few months, OEMs may move to DDR because of the sheer volume of DDR that is being used. DDR RAM, however is still more expensive; Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM).
In terms of high end Intel systems, DDR just isn't that way to go. A couple of months ago, when Intel got to 2GHz, they were beasting on similar Athlon systems. But now, AMD has gone on a tear, heavily ramping up their Palomino core. A 1.9 XP w/ DDR beats a 2GHz P4 w/ PC800 RDRAM in every category except for memory bandwith...If the Intel was using DDR as well, the Xp's margin of victory will be even greater. The P4 relies on fast, fast memory. Give a P4 slow memory, and it will freeze (P4 and SDRAM is a horrid combo). Since RAMBUS will soon be releasing pumped 133 MHz bus memory, I think this is the memory that will help Intel more than DDR. Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle. I think that if Intel cuts memory performance to reduce price, they are losing their ONLY advantage over AMD systems.
..you seriously think that for a majority of applications people have any clue on how to access memory? People write Visual Basic and Java..
Actually - fitting the data you use into L2 cache is much more important IMO.. I have seen factor of 3 improvements in some of my code.. Local alignment (UNder 4k blocks) matters less from my benchmarks..
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
What's wrong with the SiS?
by
diesel_jackass
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
This isn't about price.
It's about Intel failing to grab more control of the technology that makes up a PC.
And that IS a GOOD thing.
I've got nothing against Intel.
But monopolies usually suck for everyone but the monopolist.
Re:Initial Designs
by
WasterDave
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The P4 was designed for truly immense memory bandwidth and very large on chip cache. The current generation of P4 is suffering from the cache being significantly below it's design point, which is somewhere around the 2Mb mark. Obviously with a cache this big the latency of the ram itself isn't such a problem - hence Intel signing up to RDRAM.
Anyway, the actual question was:
but could it be that the company that everybody hates is actually the better way to go in this case?
Not really. There's not that much difference in bandwidth between DDR and RDRAM anyway. And Rambus need to go broke to remind the industry in general that we won't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Unfortunately they have some huge contracts, the PS2 being probably the biggest, so it seems unlikely they are going to go chapter 11 in the near future.
Re:Isn't it too late to worry about this?
by
bryan1945
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM). "
Please don't tell me you are seriously basing your opinions on the above! You are bitching about a $20 difference in RAM!!!!????!! At one time 2MB RAM cost $2000! 2MB to 4MB was thousands of dollars, yet you complain about $20? Yes, I know that everything is cheaper now, but you have zero perspective on value.
"but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM" - ah, there was a point were RAM was too expensive to replace your floppy drvie. Again, this is dated but don't bitch because you can't buy that "extra juicy" gum instead of the "regular juicy" gum; we're talking 3-4 magnitudes of difference here.
Another OT topic-
"Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle." I guess Apple should just pack it in?
It's nearly painful to watch these youngins complain about spending an extra $20 on memory!!
-- Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Well, this is really old actually.
by
CMiYC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Intel's chipsets for P4 have been using DDR for a while now. In fact, most OEMs have been developing P4 systems with DDR for months now. I can't tell you the last time we sold a RAMBUS probe. Further more, all of intel's future processor chipsets will use DDR as well.
I work for a test equipment supplier which will go unnamed.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to illustrate the similarities between this and Sony's patent related to Beta videocasette tapes, but it would have been sure to result in a flamewar.
And it is latency that usually counts, peak transfer rate is not sustainable anyway. A dual channel DDR-SDRAM platform would be faster than dual channel RDRAM platform, single channel ddrs are already competing with dual channel rdrams. With 166*2MHz DDRs on the horizon, I think it is a very sensible solution.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
It's unfortunate that Rambus RIMMs are even more obsolete now that Intel's new chipsets are going to DDR. Not that I'll miss them, but its always unfortunate when early adopters get hosed with proprietary hardware. Anyone remember the Socket 4 P60/P66? Drop a ton of money on the new Pentium, and watch while everyone who waited is able to upgrade while you can't. Ditto to those with Asus P4Ts - not only are they hosed on processor options because intel changed pinouts for the new P4s, but now the RAM is obsolete too.
From the article: Intel is planning the stealth introduction of a chipset that will let computer makers connect the Pentium 4 to speedy DDR (double data rate) memory.
Speedy? Isn't DDR-SDRAM slower than RDRAM? Sounds a bit fluffy to me. What they really mean, but don't clearly spell out, is that DDR is faster than the normal SDRAM the 845 supports. But its still no RDRAM. Which I guess everyone here knew anyways.
Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to upgrade it. (I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
We've all seen the THG memory bandwidth benchmarks that show RIMMS are still way ahead of DDR DIMMS in terms of bandwidth. The CPU, well that's another story, but nonetheless Intel is not taking back what they've said, they're simply offering another choice to consumers, which is a good thing. I don't think we should critisize them for offering up a system with "slightly" lower performance. How rare is it, when a company has been forced (a la AMD and VIA) to offer more choices for the increasingly price/performance consious consumers? Pour a cold one for the little guy.
Interesting Point, but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM right now. However, once the Northwood gets released in a few months, OEMs may move to DDR because of the sheer volume of DDR that is being used. DDR RAM, however is still more expensive; Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM).
In terms of high end Intel systems, DDR just isn't that way to go. A couple of months ago, when Intel got to 2GHz, they were beasting on similar Athlon systems. But now, AMD has gone on a tear, heavily ramping up their Palomino core. A 1.9 XP w/ DDR beats a 2GHz P4 w/ PC800 RDRAM in every category except for memory bandwith...If the Intel was using DDR as well, the Xp's margin of victory will be even greater. The P4 relies on fast, fast memory. Give a P4 slow memory, and it will freeze (P4 and SDRAM is a horrid combo). Since RAMBUS will soon be releasing pumped 133 MHz bus memory, I think this is the memory that will help Intel more than DDR. Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle. I think that if Intel cuts memory performance to reduce price, they are losing their ONLY advantage over AMD systems.
Actually - fitting the data you use into L2 cache is much more important IMO.. I have seen factor of 3 improvements in some of my code.. Local alignment (UNder 4k blocks) matters less from my benchmarks..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q4/011008 /index.html
I thought that this chipset looked good enough.
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
This isn't about price.
It's about Intel failing to grab more control of the technology that makes up a PC.
And that IS a GOOD thing.
I've got nothing against Intel.
But monopolies usually suck for everyone but the monopolist.
The P4 was designed for truly immense memory bandwidth and very large on chip cache. The current generation of P4 is suffering from the cache being significantly below it's design point, which is somewhere around the 2Mb mark. Obviously with a cache this big the latency of the ram itself isn't such a problem - hence Intel signing up to RDRAM.
Anyway, the actual question was:
but could it be that the company that everybody hates is actually the better way to go in this case?
Not really. There's not that much difference in bandwidth between DDR and RDRAM anyway. And Rambus need to go broke to remind the industry in general that we won't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Unfortunately they have some huge contracts, the PS2 being probably the biggest, so it seems unlikely they are going to go chapter 11 in the near future.
Wankers.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
"Crucial sells 256 Megs for 50 bucks, compared w/ 30 for some PC133...But I think thats artificial Christmas Price Inflation (TM). "
Please don't tell me you are seriously basing your opinions on the above! You are bitching about a $20 difference in RAM!!!!????!! At one time 2MB RAM cost $2000! 2MB to 4MB was thousands of dollars, yet you complain about $20? Yes, I know that everything is cheaper now, but you have zero perspective on value.
"but the price of DDR RAM is still to expensive to replace SDRAM" - ah, there was a point were RAM was too expensive to replace your floppy drvie. Again, this is dated but don't bitch because you can't buy that "extra juicy" gum instead of the "regular juicy" gum; we're talking 3-4 magnitudes of difference here.
Another OT topic-
"Intel is losing, and has ALWAYS lost, the price battle." I guess Apple should just pack it in?
It's nearly painful to watch these youngins complain about spending an extra $20 on memory!!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Intel's chipsets for P4 have been using DDR for a while now. In fact, most OEMs have been developing P4 systems with DDR for months now. I can't tell you the last time we sold a RAMBUS probe. Further more, all of intel's future processor chipsets will use DDR as well.
I work for a test equipment supplier which will go unnamed.