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."

Comments

Hype

[rmarll]

Good god. Most of those benchmarks showed little or no performance benefit. Some even had a small(insignificant) decrease compared to the other platforms.

The reviewer was sure jazzed about that .1-1% increase though.

Really damn excited...

Evaluate the Pentium IV design at 6 GHz.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Evaluate the Pentium IV design at 6 GHz.

[Perdo]

I think he meant Apple:

"Remember the 1 GHz G4? That was a marketing push to try to counter AMD's competition, not something the engineers wanted. In many ways, it made the G4 look bad, because the G4 was not designed to run at 1 GHz. People still remember the poor 1 GHz benchmarks; those benchmarks have done lasting damage."

Yes, that works remarkably well...

The G4: So slow, you need two of them just to pretend to be in the game. BTW, this article is about 1066 rdram -vs- DDR 333 not Apple PC133 SDRAM, why are you even participating? Oh, that's right, Apple has a new ugly rackmout out that uses DDR 266, a memory technology that the PC world has had for over a year and a half. Apple has worn out their CPU bandwidth constriction picture.

A little more news: the G5 is an AMD Opteron Sledgehammer!