Slashdot Mirror
PC1066 RDRAM vs. DDR SDRAM
Brad wrote into send us his "Comparison of PC1066 RDRAM vs DDR SDRAM. Quote - RDRAM is considerably more expensive that DDR SDRAM, and up until now the 100MHz PC800 specification didn't do well in comparison. Just recently 133MHz PC1066 was launched, and is now officially supported by the new Intel P4 and the Intel 850E core logic chipset, but this time promises to bring memory performance to the next level."
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you to pause and reflect on the rights, freedoms, and way of life others have fought to preserve for us. We take a lot for granted here in America; worry about way too many trivial things when we really should be thankful for what we have and striving to make even parts of our lifestyle possible for others. If you know someone in your life who has sacrificed for our country, please remember to let them know that you appreciate them. Honor the fallen by comemmorating their achievements and remembering their lives. Happy Memorial Day, everyone. Now back to the trolling.
Why name memory chip standard after the year in which the Battle of Hastings was fought?
fine, this is all well and good, but how fast does it actually need to be before the gains are no longer better than the costs?
I was wondering what was going to come along to give PC/OS manufacturers an excuse to charge more for a PC, and here it is!
No doubt XP2 will require a 4ghz cpu, 2 gigs of this new ram, different coloured motherboard, maybe firewire2, superDUPER ata 9 million IDE etc etc...
I`m stopping at my current machine. Linux presumably doesnt need all this crap to do the same stuff its done up until now without it. What do we need more power for anyway? Games? Is that it? What other aspect of PC`s needs accelerating now? I thought the weak link was internet bandwidth?
They both suck.
What does Dance Dance Revolution have to to with SDRAM??
but why would anyone want to shell out for an RDRAM/P4 system? You can get an Athlon for much cheaper, and load up on DDR memory. It may not be quite as fast as the Intel system, or play a fancy tune in some commercials, but it'll get the job done for a lot less, in most cases.
Is it really worth that hefty extra price tag to the end user? Perhaps for a network, but a preformance increase would be only slightly noticable to a person.
I'm confused... Intel has all but denounced future support for RAMBUS, yet they continue to make chipsets that work with the latest and greatest. When (if ever) are we going to see a complete serparation?
http://www.theinquirer.net/24050203.htm
That said, PC1066 has been tested before (can't find the article at Ace's Hardware), and the bandwidth of DRDRAM appears to compensate quite nicely for the P4's generally lousy architecture, as does its increased cache size (now 512k L2).
I wonder how expensive a graphics card with RDRAM would be, or if it would be any faster?
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
Ok, the diference is not THAT large... knowing that this memory is much more expensive, Id rather have a system with 3gb DDR that is slight slower (but we know atlhons are in many cases faster) than one with 512mb of this "state-of-the-art" chip...
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
Why didn't they show us any Quake III comparison benches? We all know that at lower resolutions the processor drives Quake III and that its extremely sensitive to memory bandwith capabilities. Anyway it appears that RDRAM 1066 is a definite improvement over RDRAM 800. Its good to see that Intel is still continually raising the bar.
Also I believe there were some initial benches (better ones) on http://www.tomshardware.com
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
The right way around would be to report that there now are PC1066 RAM available that supports the I850E platform.
Apparently the chipset is just an overclocked variant of the earlier variant and could not use the slowest version of the PC1066 standard memory. Ironically the only version available when 850E was launched.
www.theinquirer.net, wish they had a better back-catalogue
Good god. Most of those benchmarks showed little or no performance benefit. Some even had a small(insignificant) decrease compared to the other platforms.
.1-1% increase though.
The reviewer was sure jazzed about that
Really damn excited...
buy what's cheap. It makes financial sense.
I dont really know much about memory, but from the test results shown, the percentage of performance increase seemed to be almost trivial on the multimedia test. would this really help my browser render pages faster or increase the frame rate of my dvds?
that is, does the quad pumped 133mhz bus actually run the memory through it as well... if thats the case then the rdrram is running at its optimum of 533mhz?... am i right or totally of the mark? :-)
So maybe I am an idiot, but does anyone know (i.e, have figures) that relate these to the memory types commonly in systems people actually have... (SDRAM).
For example... apple is moving from of PC133 SDRAM (current G4 systems) to PC2100 DDR SDRAM, what does this actually mean to an actual user?
MAK
What a bogus comparison.
PC2100 is old news, and 1066 RDRAM is just being released.
The proper comparison would have been against PC3200, or PC2700 at least.
N.B., I've been using PC2700 in my machine for two months. PC3200 is about 33% more expensive.
--Blair
While the benchmarks he ran show nice bandwidth figures (Negligible, really, in light of how expensive that RDRAM is- if that's all this new memory spec can do, well...) it doesn't tell the whole story. There's bandwidth and then there's latency. In the case of RAMBUS, there's more latency involved with the access of the memory than with DDR SDRAM- latency that may eat some or all the bandwidth gains you see there when you start doing something other than benchmarks. If it's not really much faster (Sorry, it's not when you start looking at the bigger picture), why are you spending 3 or more times for it?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Of all the tests done between these two, about a 5% improve was the most that the PC1066 had. How exactly does about a 5% improve justify the (previously true, now perhaps perceived) significant increase in price?
It ALMOST sounds like someone *COUGHRDRAMMAKERSCOUGH* was "supporting" the writer of that article, their adjectives were too strong for the data.
-Jeremiah
When I took an algorithm class last year we learned that back in the old days "memory was slow" compare to today. But, they were comparing to tape stations from the 70s, 80s, and other epochss and yet had a slew of algorithms available to handle parts working at different speed. these may come handy now, twenty years later.
Slow is a relative thing.
By rights, if you accept the higher bandwidth present with RDRAM, it should be doing dramatically better than DDR SDRAM. It's not. This is because it takes longer for the RDRAM to respond when it's accessed. If you're doing large blocks of things in memory, you might see an advantage. I say might because modern CPUs don't do as well with large blocks of data (stuff pops out of cache, etc.) so any advantage there is masked at least partly by cache misses, etc. The same goes for display chips for differing reasons- display chips access memory VERY regularly and very often. The latencies present in RDRAM might be too much.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
1
2
3
4
5
There's bandwidth and then there's latency. In the case of RAMBUS, there's more latency involved with the access of the memory than with DDR SDRAM- latency that may eat some or all the bandwidth gains you see there when you start doing something other than benchmarks.
Aye, I can see where that would certainly limit things for general-purpose computing, where one device is needed to do a bit of everything - but perhaps some situations, where constant linear access of RAM is needed may benefit from DDR. Today anyway...
I don't know - I'm not quite that into the tech, more throwing around ideas. I do tend to go with the idea that everything is somewhat useful in its' own way, and has the possibility to lead to the incredible. It's a bit pollyanna, but this is slashdot and there's enough negative to balance out *grin*
a grrl & her server
I think I'll wait until The guy who wrote this hardware report writes on this issue.
HEY! Thats what I said!! Well, in a way. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33243&cid=3591 213
Excuse me if i seem n00b-ish (snicker) in that I have no idea how to make sure that that is a real link. If all else fails, use that archaic copy/paste thing.
-Jeremiah
Seriously... why doesn't RDRAM die already... everyone knows it sucks for its price compared to DDR..... I hope Intel learned their lesson, they can't force stupid (and expensive) things onto consumers...
read gmhowell's journal about Rolling Thunder, pretty interesting.
...we compare the very latest Rambus RAM against previous generation DDR (isn't DDR333 available now?), find one benchmark in which the Rambus RAM runs about 4% faster, and say that Rambus "excels." What's wrong with this picture?
this is sort of a bunk article, isn't it? i mean, they don't go into Rambus' higher latencies at all..
Just raise the taxes on crack.
I still don't get what the deal is with all this Mhz....
Why can't they just do interleaving (call it stripping/RAID-0 for memory)? No need to crank up those Mhz's, but spread the load over a couple of DIMM's. Most large systems (at least Sun I know off) still use 100Mhz or so DIMM's but do 8-way interleaving (maybe even higher) to get their high memory bandwidths.
The market seems to be demanding higher Mhz's and seems to forget there's other stuff involved. Just look at IBM's Power4, Sun's UltraSparcIII etc... Lower Mhz's (or Ghz's) but with a big level-2 cache and by using SMP they're able to beat whatever Intel/AMD system you put them up against.
Basically, CPU cooling has been hitting us for a good while.
From an article about a bigass Beowulf cluster running Transmeta processors, you have Wu-chun Feng of the Los Alamos Labs stating
Oh my. So - what else can we do to stop this trend? Relatively slow multi-processor machines. If we keep working on multi-threading our applications, we might be able to make a computer with 8 1ghz efficient chips outperform an 8ghz Moore-compatible Intel hype-chip-based system. Really. Multi-processor machines have traditionally been too expensive for the desktop. The software people have not spent a lot of time making sure that the regular end-user applications scale well across several processors.Take something like a web browser. Given a bit of wizardry (obviously, we need to consider concurrency and critical sections), you could have separate images downloaded and processed by separate processors. Your flash ad would run on another processor.
Frankly, I'm wondering what's stopping us from using this approach to increasing performance? Is this like the fact that OEMs equip the low-end PCs with too little RAM so that Joe Shmoe will buy a new one as quickly as possible, since he does not know that spending 100 bucks on more RAM will make his computer last another year or two?
And, really, as long as the focus is on the gigahertz, do the chip makers really concentrate on making their designs as efficient as possible?
Stop the brainwash
I do not use RDRAM. Not that I do not like its performance, thought that advantage is reduced when you use many modules because of its serialization, but because Rambus--the company--is nearly as evil as Microsoft. :). html
I'm not one to require all companies that I purchase from are ethical, else I would have to be a hermit, but Rambus has gone too far too many times.
What gall a company must have to participate in open meetings of industry to discuss what to put inthe next few memory standards, without contributing, and then PATENT other peoples' ideas! Then to charge those same companies royalties to use their own innovations! Sickening!
Here is a good, short article. I'm too lazy right now to write the html code. Sorry.
http://www.theregus.com/content/archive/18849
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
This is completely off the top of my head, but I BELIEVE that SDRAM transfers 64 bits in one go. Thus, a 133MHz SDR SDRAM (the 133 in PC133 means 133MHz clock frequency) module will transfer about 133MHz * 8byte/clock = 1064MB/s. A 133Mhz DDR SDRAM module, OTOH, will transfer twice that, or about 2128MB/s (the 2100 in PC2100 means 2100MB/s).
RAMBUS is a different beast altogether. It runs at insane clock speeds (1066MHz apparently) but has a very narrow data path. Again, of the top of my head, I believe it transfers 16 bits of data in one go. Thus, a 1066MHz RIMM will be able to transfer about 1066 * 2byte/clock = 2132MB/s.
So, 2128MB/s vs 2132MB/s for theoretical max transfer rates between PC2100 SDRAM and 1016 RDRAM. Pretty tight race. The real world is always different from theory, though, which is why people run benchmarks like this :).
As was mentioned in other posts, it really is unfair to compare 1066MHz RDRAM vs. PC2100 DDR SDRAM because PC2100 is like totally last generation.
So there you go. DDR is about twice as fast as your old ordinary SDR SDRAM. RDRAM, though a completely different technology, will probably always be in the same ballpark as DDR.
I talked about the architecture of the Pentium IV with two of the architects. (In Portland, Oregon, it is sometimes possible to meet them at parties, and we have become friendly.) In perhaps 18 months, the speed of the P4 will reach 6 GHz. That's when you will be seeing more of the benefits of the design.
Remember the 1 GHz P4? That was a marketing push to try to counter AMD's competition, not something the engineers wanted. In many ways, it made the P4 look bad, because the P4 was not designed to run at 1 GHz. People still remember the poor 1 GHz benchmarks; those benchmarks have done lasting damage.
In my opinion, Intel's marketing is not technically skilled, and not skilled overall. (One of the engineers strongly agrees with this.) One of the tasks of the marketing people now should be showing people how the much faster processing speed can be used. Intel marketing, having little technical knowledge, cannot possibly do the job.
Also, Intel's management has foundered since Andy Grove got tired of running the company. The problem with poor management pre-dated his cancer. No matter what you do, if you do it for too long, it stops being exciting and becomes boring, and it becomes difficult to give it proper attention.
Oi, Brasileiro!
So it's a no-brainer: the speed is basically the same - so go for the cheapest RAM and buy more boxes with the money saved.
DDR SDRAM, SRAM, DRAM, FLASH, ROM, CD, HARD DRIVES, MRAM, FRAM, etc. look at this new technology if you are a Geek and see what
is in the Future of Data Storage.
www.colossalstorage.net
What does "the next level" mean? Does that mean that mean that my fifth level fighter will have 35,001 experience points with the new technology? Does it mean my cube will be moved upstairs? Does it mean the little bubble will sit in the middle of the glass?
That phrase should ring Dilbert-esque alarm bells. If there were awards for the most over-used marketing phrases, "the next level" would be due to win the grand prize this year.
Did you know that there are about 788,000 hits on Google for that phrase?
I'm sorry, but I have a bit of trouble taking any article seriously that uses that sort of marketing-speak.
Here is a hint, it is the same reason catholic priests are getting kicked out
I think this hybrid design of a compromise between DDR and RDRAM would give the best performance. It would relieve the need to ramp up the speed of the shared system bus AND all devices connected to it. Any ideas on fixing the problem when the memory needs to communicate with the system bus? A crossover or using the CPU as a bridge? Ah well, it was nice dreaming for a little while.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Having not been in the market for new hardware for the past 2 years, would someone be kind enough to explain the differences between the different kinds of RAM mentioned in all the replies? PC2100, PC3200, DDRxx, etc.? Just a quick primer would be great. Thanks.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
More important than latency and bandwidth (at least to OEMs) is routability. A RIMM has far fewer pins (due to the 16-bit bus etc.) than a DIMM, so creating a motherboard with Rambus memory is far easier (in fewer PCB layers) than with DDR. That makes Rambus easier to expand upon in the future, and makes putting yet another bandaid on DDR that much more difficult/unlikely.
Now if Rambus wasn't such an ugly company, and so on....
They used the very latest RDRAM, but they used year-old, PC2100 DDR SDRAM. Hmm, I wonder who will win this battle!
PC2400, PC2700, and PC3200 DDR SDRAM is out there. Why didn't they test against that?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Take something like a web browser. Given a bit of wizardry (obviously, we need to consider concurrency and critical sections), you could have separate images downloaded and processed by separate processors. Your flash ad would run on another processor.
Web tasks tend not to be processor-bound. You're limited by your 'net connection for these (you can draw an image far faster than you can download it).
It turns out that most of the tasks people do either aren't strong loads on the system at all (e.g. surfing, email, word-processing, spreadsheets) or are limited by some other part of the system (memory bandwidth, disk, or graphics card).
Of the remaining tasks, most aren't easily parallelized (or at least not automatically). Of the ones that are partly parallelizable, the serial part of the task tends to cause bottlenecking, which gives you rapidly-diminishing returns (look up "Amdahl's Law" for a deeper explanation of this).
The only processor-intensive, easily-parallelizable task that's currently done is 3D gaming, and the processing load for that is mainly handled by the video card, not the CPU. Graphics cards already parallelize to some degree on-die, but can't have more than one graphics chip without driving up the price of the card considerably. While this can be (and is) done for high-end cards, consumers prefer cards that are at a sane price.
In short, in the one place where most people would benefit from a multi-chip solution, you won't see it.
Frankly, I'm wondering what's stopping us from using this approach to increasing performance? Is this like the fact that OEMs equip the low-end PCs with too little RAM so that Joe Shmoe will buy a new one as quickly as possible, since he does not know that spending 100 bucks on more RAM will make his computer last another year or two?
Actually, it's that Joe Schmoe *prefers* to buy as cheap a computer as he can get his hands on. This is why you don't see many machines sold with a vast amount of RAM, and why you don't see many dual-processor machines sold.
People apparently really _do_ just want cheap machines, not optimized machines.
And, really, as long as the focus is on the gigahertz, do the chip makers really concentrate on making their designs as efficient as possible?
Yes - if you mean performance-efficient. Being able to say that you kick your competitor's ass in benchmarking does make some difference (especially if games are some of those benchmarks).
There isn't much incentive to be power-efficient beyond the amount needed to keep your chip from melting into slag, for desktops, at least. There are many low-power offerings already used in palmtops and embedded devices.
Power efficiency _is_ an issue, as reasonable power dissipation is the primary limit to a computer's clock rate. However, as long as people are willing to use computers with fans and heatsinks, your desktop processor will dissipate 50W+.
Thank you Jar Jar, good question, for the hardcore EE peeps, here's some PDFs so disable ROT13
DDR 133 timing sheet
Rambus timing sheet
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
If you read the review, DDR & RDRAM are almost neck and next in all benchmarks, RDRAM only beats out DDR by less then 1% on most tests, and only beats it out in one benchmark overall.
Om, nomnomnom...
It appears so. I got my information confused: Intel confirms P4 speed revs. I confused the disappointing early P4 benchmarks and the problems with speeding up the PIII.
The overall point is correct, however. Intel's marketing created big problems for the company. Intel let events run the communication about the P4, rather than their own marketing explanation. For example, see Pentium 4 yields 'not impressive'. Someone leaked that story from a plant in Israel.
Now that I look at some of the old articles, I realize that Intel's marketing communication was even worse than I thought. In general, companies are having huge problems running highly technical operations with a large percentage of people who have little technical understanding.
My contacts at Intel insist that the biggest problems are with communication, not with fundamental details. To me, that seems right.
No, the P4 has an architecture that was designed for the computers of the future. It's like a small dog with very big paws. It will be impressive when it grows up.
The heat dissipation comes from using the P4 architecture with the larger design rules. As the die sizes shrink, the heat dissipation will go down, and the wisdom behind other elements of the design will become more apparent.
Notice that we are already seeing this effect. The 2.4 GHz P4 performs very well.
Intel is demonstrating a 5 GHz P4 that runs cool with no fan. See, for example, Intel to demo fanless, cool 5 GHz chip. Quote: "Intel has now formally released details of the 3MB cache on chip which it claims will deliver 1.5 to two times [the] performance over the current designs." [My emphasis.]
The utter sadness of Intel's marketing is demonstrated by the fact that this information is being brought to you by a guy [me] whose only connection with the information is that he sells computers to business customers and that he happens to live in the same city as Intel's design team. The guy happened to meet two Intel engineers at parties. If Intel had good marketing, you would already know these things.
The moral of the Intel marketing story is: Don't try to run a high-tech company with low-tech employees in marketing. If I were running Intel's marketing, your little brother and maybe even your mom would be asking you about Intel's great new achievements.
RDRAM 1066: 2.04 fps
RDRAM 800 2.03 fps
DDRRAM 2100 2.03 fps
DDRRAM 3200 2.05 fps.
Conclusion
I think we have a clear winner here. PC3200 DDR wipes the floor with the competition. Anyone who's invested in RDRAM is a loser, and knows it :). Too bad it took such a blatent lead in these upcoming Doom3 benchmarks in order to prove it.
Tune in next week to our program to find out how you really should say it.... Tom-ay-to, or Tom-ah-to.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Parallelism primitives? Why not include something like JCSP in the basic Java specification?
It's great being able to define Processes + Channels instead of dicking around with all that synchronized wait silliness. Thanks heaps to Prof. Peter Welch and his team for their work.
Also, apparently there is another CSP implementation for Java called or CTJ, haven't used it, however...
Ok, I found a home for the two 32 MB EDO 72 pin 4k refresh sticks. It's in my Macintosh Quadra 660av!
Normally, apple ram will work in my Compaq 575, but these two sticks caused lots of trouble with Windows 98 in the Compaq, and barely ran RHL 6.1 (well enough to get the above post completed). I am making this post with the two sticks, and from the Mac.) Where will I go next with the two bargain 32 mb sticks? Will I put them in something else, and get back here with a slightly off topic post? I'll spare everyone that;-).
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
Heat is basically energy dissipated. Energy dissipation in a CMOS processor is directly related to the number of transistors that switch per second and the voltages they switch between. It is also related to the size of the transistor, but this is the least important factor, since there are plenty of other reasons companies want smaller transistors anyway.
This if you reduce the voltage a processor runs at it produces less heat. If you reduce the speed a processor runs at it produces less heat. Also, as overclockers know, if you reduce the speed a processor runs at, you can often reduce the voltage it runs at also. That is the only way in which two 1GHz processors could dissipate less heat than a single equivalent 2GHz processor.
I think energy efficiency currently favors single processor machines and will continue to do so. The reason for this is that in almost every design (ARM being the exception), unused portions of the processor still use significant power. So the less you utilize your processor, the more power you waste. With two processors you will have twice many units being underitilized.
This would be different in a system where the processor is continually pegged.
Don't own any RDRAM (using an Athlon+DDR mostly) but the "RDRAM costs much more" argument is bogus. Compare what Samsung originals PC800 cost compared to brand name--not generic or House Brand--true CAS Latency 2.0 PC2100. It's a wash.
Quality PC2100 is frequently marketed as PC2400. On www.pricewatch.com, the difference between PC800 and PC2100 is $5 for 128MB.
I don't pick my platforms for the DRAM. I went with an AthlonXP 2100+ (1733MHz). But if I was going to buy a Pentium-4, I would use the i850E with PC1066.
---
Shut the fuck up until then...
You are giving details that were NOT in the article cited.
everyone knows it sucks for its price compared to DDR
OK there Mr. Rip Van Winkle, you must have been asleep for quite some time now. RDRAM and DDR have been virtually the same price for almost a year. I just built two virtually identical machines using P4 1.6A GHz Northwood chips and ASUS mobos, one is P4T-E mobo with rambus memory the other with P4B266 mobo with DDR memory. They both have identical disk drives, and 512MB of memory (Mushkin CAS222 DDR, the best in that machine). The rambus machine runs circles around the DDR machine. Not to say that the DDR machine isn't fast... it is very fast, just that the rambus machine is a significant amount faster and cost within $20 of the same price to build.
Ummm.. What the hell are you talking about?!?!
The Intel P4 processor does NOT contain a memory controller, of ANY type! It doesn't matter if you're using RDRAM or DDR memory, both go through the memory controller (on the chipset) and BOTH share the system bus with all other processor chipset I/O.
However, you are touching on an interesting point; integrated memory controllers. Sun does this now with their UltraSparc III (an SDRAM controller.. or is it a DDR controller?), and if (Digital/Compaq/HP/whatever they're called next week) ever gets the Alpha EV7 out, they'll have an integrated RDRAM controller on the processor. For x86 chips, AMD is leading the way here, with their next generation "Hammer" processors having an integrated DDR memory controller. These chips should be out around October or so, and should provide for some very impressive memory performance.
The article is confused. Several things are being discussed at the same time. However, I talked to someone who said he saw a demonstration of a 5 GHz P4 at the conference. I am able to find no other confirmation.
The elements the article discusses are at least proof of concept. And, the article discusses results that are certainly the intention of Intel.
I was told several years ago by someone extremely familiar with the work at Intel that the fabrication processes for the transistors of a new microprocessor are designed about 4 years in advance. The fabrication processes determines the design rules. They determine the voltage at which the microprocessor will run. They determine the ultimate speed. So, everyone knows what is coming 4 years before it arrives.
The depth of negativity toward Intel surprises me. Usually, everything Intel does is examined for negative details, both in hardware reviews and on Slashdot. As the 2.4 GHz P4 shows, Intel delivers, so the underlying facts are positive.
I consider this negativity, which began, I think, with the recall of the 1.13 GHz PIII, and the initial slow speed of the P4, to be an enormous communication failure at Intel.
Here is a quote from a May 6th, 2002 AnandTech article, Intel Introduces 533MHz FSB CPUs -- Pentium 4 2.53 GHz: "Today Intel is working a bit ahead of schedule. Originally Intel was going to release one CPU, the Pentium 4 2.4B processor; the 'B' suffix denotes the use of a 133MHz quad-pumped FSB (effectively 533MHz). But courtesy of high yields and good performance in Intel's strict validation process, today you'll not only get one but two new 533MHz FSB processors - clocked at 2.4 and 2.53 GHz."
The Pentium 4 is beginning to get very positive reviews, but the tide of sentiment has not turned yet. People seem to be saying negative things out of habit. I suppose AnandTech is slightly ahead of the times.
Modern microprocessors are one of the most impressive scientific achievements. But everything associated with them takes time. They require $3,000,000,000 fabrication plants, which take time to build. Yet, a 1.8 GHz P4 now costs only $180. That's an amazing achievement.
If you examine the situation carefully, I think you will see that the evidence is that the baby with huge paws will grow up to be an impressive animal.
See my earlier post, Several things discussed at the same time. (#3595451)
The initial points of the original post, "Evaluate the Pentium IV design at 6 GHz" were: 1) Don't worry, the P4 will get there, and 2) We shouldn't be reading about the P4 from "Hoser McMoose" or Futurepower. If Intel's marketing communications department were doing a good job, none of this thread would have been necessary. Not that we shouldn't listen to Hoser McMoose, just that Intel should do a better job of communicating. Because of Intel's poor communication, we are probably all getting it a little bit wrong.
However most good ideas come at unexpected times, pulling the memory (DDR or RDRAM or whatever) memory off the system bus and onto a dedicated bus straight to the CPU will make it a *lot* easier to overclock that individually and will relieve the FSB. It occured to me the L3 cache (on G4 and Alpha EV8) fits this criteria and operates on a seperate bus - the back side bus. I'm saying MOVE the whole system RAM to the backside bus. This would allow us to screw the FSB for most main memory requests.
You can keep a small amount of RAM on the FSB, this'll just be a DMA cache for HD and PCI device data transfers, etc. It sounds crazy enough to actually work.
The L3 cache will act as the main memory. The "DMA cache" and L1/L2 cache will write-through/write-back their data into this BSB main memory. Nice. I/O overclockers will work on the FSB, RAM bandwidth overclockers will work on the BSB. Overclockers' dream. Oops, I'm waking up now....
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?