This makes memory manufacturers very happy because they can be more flexible and responsive to last-minute changes in demand between SDRAM and DDR than they can be with RDRAM. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse5.0 out of 5 starsNon-ECC MemoryByTimon May 22, 2012Verified PurchaseI have a Dell Demisions 8250 with Non ECC Memeory and have been told that ECC Why Is Intel So Hellbent on RDRAM There's essentially two reasons: First, it already has a million warrants of RAMBUS stock. catch-22 and all that.
If you were planning on making on ton of RDRAM a little down the road, don't you think you'd want your employees to get used to doing it? But why isn't that happening? Please give the massive profit back to the memory manufacturer.'? Rambus isn't really a break through, and it will soon be antiquated by cheaper DDR 333 which has 600MB/sec speed advantage over PC1066. https://forums.techguy.org/threads/why-does-rdram-cost-so-much-anyways.428956/
Espically because I want to play Unreal 2 with only 256MB of RAM, and i've decided i'll put that on hold for now. I can see right now I am going to have to put the old memory back in. Rambus doesn't need that many pins to equal that amount of bandwidth. Re:Hype (Score:2, Informative) by Frogg ( 27033 ) writes: Most of those benchmarks showed little or no performance benefit.
Re:Evaluate the Pentium IV design at 6 GHz. (Score:2) by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) writes: I made a mistake. While that doesn't mean RDRAM takes twice as much space as SDRAM (lower yield from larger circuits and wafer size considerations also play a role), it does indicate that RDRAM fabrication Latency is evil... (Score:2) by Beliskner ( 566513 ) writes: The Intel P4 processor does NOT contain a memory controller, of ANY type! Current memory, no matter what it is, is a good deal slower than the processor.
Serial tasks. (Score:2) by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) writes: Take something like a web browser. If you dont' know which 3 of these companies are doing it by now, then ignore this thread So now, we've got the 3 EXCLUSIVE DDR PLAYERS trying hard to edge Who's fooling who? Either the modules usually work, or if wastage at this stage were that big a deal, I would think manufacturers would just test them in a colder, highly ventilated environment.) All
Better suitd for large amounts of RAM than is the i850E. Please don't read into my posts. 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. Which is the brute force approach?
Intel is labeling it as a workstation chipset just to justify the increased cost. #211 Ice9, Feb 28, 2003 FishTankX Platinum Member Joined: Oct 6, 2001 Messages: 2,738 Likes Received: The two aims contradict each other. However, that benchmarking is not valid for or even terribly indicative of any comparison between DDR and future dual-channel RDRAM systems with much higher FSBs. See, for example, Intel to demo fanless, cool 5 GHz chip [theinquirer.net].
flavallee replied Mar 17, 2017 at 7:47 PM Loading... At current prices, maybe $10-12 per $500 RIMM; if RDRAM were selling for $200, we're talking about $5 a RIMM. They might. If these Dual Channel DDR boards were so darned cheap to make, and parallel interfaces were so much more advantageous, then the world wouldn't be moving towards more serialized interfaces.
Let's discuss CPU cooling & SMP (Score:4, Informative) by Jeppe Salvesen ( 101622 ) writes: on Monday May 27, 2002 @02:19PM (#3591422) CPU cooling is much more relevant to performance than Discussion in 'Hardware' started by invain, Dec 28, 2005. People still remember the poor 1 GHz benchmarks; those benchmarks have done lasting damage. There were limited amounts made so the price never dropped the way ddr did.
I'll discuss some possible reasons why in the next section, but for now, many of the RIMMs going into OEM machines are PC600 and 700 RIMMs, and if that keeps up, Not every workstation needs 2 CPU's, but alot of workstations for use in heavy enviornments might choke on the 2GB RDRAM limit in the i850E. limits FSB to 133MHz, so adding memory bandwidth above what PC2100 can deliver makes no difference.
The reality is software manufacturers like to sell to as many people as possible while taking at least some advantage of hardware developments. Re:Why doesn't RDRAM die? (Score:2) by swordgeek ( 112599 ) writes: 1) RDRAM doesn't die because Intel still supports it. 1a) Intel still supports RDRAM because it wasn't a 100% bad We just don't know that yet, and won't until we see Tehama with a full 400Mhz FSB in operation. Since when are Suns faster than a garden variety X86 box at 1/6th the price?
Look at those "heat spreaders," for instance. DUMPING, no. So all that stuff about RDRAMs "heat spreader" is bunkum? Lastly, the practices of Rambus Inc make me not touch their RAM with a 10 ft pole but that's besides the point.
I feel like I've been screwd over by Dell, haha. So there was PC600, PC700 and PC800 RDRAM, again based on MHz, so that gave you 9600, 11200, and 12800 Mb/s bandwidth. What the explanation obfuscates, though, is the truth: these chips get very hot, and direct their heat into the motherboard. In general, companies are having huge problems running highly technical operations with a large percentage of people who have little technical understanding.
Remember the 1 GHz P4? My point is, whatever memory you use, make sure it is good quality, and a matched set, approved for your machine. However, the SDRAM layout of eight chips for a module has pretty much been around since the dawn of the PC, so motherboard designers are well used to it, so in It can also use gigabyte memory modules meaning you could have 2 gigabyte memory modules and leave the rest free for an upgrade down the road.
Does power disappation scale linearly with clock speed and number of transistors? However, they have been a particularly noisy and boisterous underdog challenger. Since the biggest players in the DRAM industry at the time "declined" intel's offer to refit their fabs, the powerplay was purely in favor of SDRAM/DDR. But man does not live by technical factors alone.
Until then, most threaded software is a pain in the ass to write. Multi-processor machines have traditionally been too expensive for the desktop. As things stand now, multiple modules are probably not a very good idea. They're simply two different aproaches.
I'll retract my statement just as soon as my boss replaces all of our software with Mem Tach. Its good to see that Intel is still continually raising the bar. This 60 dollar investment saved me the cost of a new computer tower. Answer: It's too expensive.
Very happy with the purchase.Read more0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse5.0 out of 5 starsGreat customer service!ByAmazon Customeron July 22, 2014Verified PurchaseThese people are great!