Ram Question

[bear]

Which is better Ram to buy and why??? Which is faster??

1. SDRAM

2. DDRAM

3. RDRAM

Thanks,

Bear

 

[columbo]

Hi,

Here's a site for each type that gives an overview, explanation, and comparison for the different types that you asked about. I don't know if they indicate prices, as the cost of memory is constantly changing. (The DDRAM page isn't too helpful, sorry)
You should probably just stick with buying SDRAM, (in my humble opinion).

Hope this helps.

Columbo

DDRAM

RDRAM

SDRAM

 

[Max19]

What type of memory to use depends on what chipset, motherboard, and processor you're purchasing. Also, you can't put any type of RAM onto any motherboard.

Columbo, I'm interested in hearing what your logic is behind your suggestion.

 

[bear]

From what I read then, SDRAM will not be able o keep up with the faster bus that are coming out on some of the new mother boards and processors. If that is correct, DDRAM or RDRAM is the way to go........am i correct in my way of thinking???

 

[kramnnim]

Yes.

 

[deuce]

SDRam is still the standard but is getting outdated and behind the times quite fast. DDR is not much more than SDRam so I don't know why anyone still buys mobos using SDRam. It should be extinct by now. DDR and RD are the way to go I would recommend not to do otherwise. RD is about 10 to 20x faster than SD and still much faster than DDR, but RD is still fairly expensive, but becoming more and more reasonable each day. RDRam didn't catch on quite as well as Rambus hoped it would, but there is enough of an audience to keep it around and keep developing it and get it cheaper. DDR will very soon completely replace SD (in my humble opinion...hehe) so if funds are tight go with DDR and a DDR mobo. If funds are sufficient than I would say go RD and a RD mobo because I feel you will really enjoy the extra speed. Current prices for pc-800 RD is about $30 per 128 mb. I am not sure, but I would imagine DDR is about half that or slightly less... might be around $20 per 128mb. As of last April RDRam was about $140 per 128mb so it is nice it has come down. It used to require a second mortgage to supply your machine with an adequate supply, but now isn't so bad. I use RDRam and really like it, but I got my P4 before P4 mobos had the option of using DDR. Had I had the choice I am not sure, but might have still gone with RDRam.

 

[columbo]

Hey guys,

OK. To justify my response, and prevent anymore responses teeming with underlying contempt or sarcasm (Duece_MN)
Bear made no mention of the specifics of his system, (in terms of compatability), and seemed to just be seeking more information. I'm not an expert on memory, (hence the "humble" part), and thats why I posted links with more info for him, just trying to help.

Max19, I said in my first post that he might just want to stick with SDRAM, because of it's widespread consideration as the current standard for memory. When the consumer-standard for memory shifts towards DDram, and I learn more about it, I'm sure my opinion will be open to change. I guess that comes from having known people who, wanting to upgrade their older system (as opposed to just buying a new one) go out and buy more memory, just assuming that any type of memory will be compatible with their old motherboard. I didn't know whether Bear was planning on building a brand-new system, or wanting to upgrade the current amount of RAM in the system that he has.

 

[Rikku]

Actually PCWorld just did a benchmark of systems with SdRam, DDRam, and Rambus

And DDR won despite Rambus's bandwidth edge.

 

[Max19]

There are many reviews of memory out there. Some say DDR memory was faster, others say RAMBUS memory was faster. Look carefully to see what they're using to test.

DDR memory is sometimes faster for standard applications such as Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, and other productivity apps. These older, standard applications were not written to get optimal performance out of the large bus that RAMBUS memory uses. Certain graphics applications and games sometimes show RAMBUS as being faster because they better utilize the bus speed.

The FACT is that Rambus memory utilizes a much faster bus than DDR memory does. Depending on what applications you're using, you may or may not see this increased speed.

 

[deuce]

and prevent anymore responses teeming with underlying contempt or sarcasm (Duece_MN)

Columbo... I'm sorry but I didn't mean to come off that way. The "my humble opinion" comment was directed more towards SDRam then you... I was just offering my insight to this topic... but we should try not to drift on this one...

As to what Max said... you have to remember people that Rambus uses a 400 Mhz bus and SDRam is only 100 or 133 or there abouts usually and I don't think DDR is too much faster. The 400 Mhz bus is so new not many aps utilize it, so they don't perform as fast as memory that is running aps that are more efficiently utilizing a slower bus. Thus... if you have RDRam... you unfortunately for the moment are paying for really great speed that not many aps can use... yet. I think that is why RDRam isn't catching on as well as they hoped... it is a little expensive and people currently can't use the speed they are paying for. If you want RDRam though... it is still worth it.


[Disclaimer: this is all just opinionated so nobody think of it differently. ]

 

[bear]

Hey Guys,
I am glad that this debate is going on, as I am learning from it..... Let me explain further......I am wanting to build a new system, and I am wanting to use either a P4 or K7 XP. I know that RDRam is not compatable with the AMD chips. So from what has been debated here, if I want a fast machine, I need to go with a P4 and a mob that supports RDRam.
So now, here is something more to hash out. Which would be better????

1. AMD XP 1800 and use DDRAM

2. P4 1.5 and RDRam

Thanks guys for your input.

Bear

 

[deuce]

As of right now... I don't see anything AMD offers that is better than Intel except that AMD is cheaper. PC-800 RDRam is faster than PC-2100 DDR because of the 400 mhz bus, so technically a 1.5 Ghz P4 RDRam is faster than an AMD 1.5 Ghz DDR... but many fellow AMD users will beg to differ. Many say AMD is faster than Intel when it comes to gaming and AMD is easier to tweak, but Intel is faster with most other apps... especially business and some graphics applications. (They are both built completely different, so that is a facter) It really comes down to prices and quality. Intel is more expensive, but is much more stable and is much better quality. AMD is cheaper and thus can be upgraded whenever you get tired of its speed and want to go faster, be it in one month or one year. I personally have a P4 1.5 Ghz with 128mb RDRam and am really impressed. I also like the P4 architecture over the XP. Until AMD comes out with a better chip than Intel (which may be the next one...who knows) I will stick with Intel. Currently Intel has a speed edge over AMD as well as Intel is over 2 Ghz now (was at 2 last I checked back in september) and AMD is only 1.7 I think or there abouts. (However... the average user has no practical use for those speeds anyway) AMD also runs very hot so unless you prefer to sit one foot away from a jet engine everyday, go Intel. I like peace, so that is one thing I like with the P4... it is very quite. I have only one fan and it is the cpu fan... and it runs just fine. Usually doesn't go over 50C. For you, you need to assess what you mainly use your computer for, and play in the speed vs. value, quality vs. price, and stability factors and decide what is your best buy this time around. Also, if you are building, I hear Intel is much easier to build with, as it usually works out fine with little effort, and AMD is prone to major and minor problems that come about in the building process... but I don't personally know about that statement.

 

[Rikku]

If you ever read Computer Shopper, they pray for Rambus's demise every issue. I just read this the other day and there's something in Jan. issue too.

"Not since IBM's MCA bus has anything been so ill-received as the union of Pentium 4 and RDRAM. The offspring was overpriced PCs that couldn't justify their existence in the face not only of AMD's Athlon, but also Intel's own 1GHZ Pentium III when equipped with DDR SDRAM. Still Intel pushed and pushed Pentium4/RDRAM systems as if they could save the earth and increase the intellectual capacity of the average eighth grader. Greed."

 

[bear]

But is RDam worth the added expense in buying it, or would DDRam be just as good??? I know there are some differences between the AMD chip and P4, like interal cache and that kind of stuff, but is there any real difference between a P4 with RDram running a 1.5 ghz or a AMD 1.5 ghz with DDRam??? Say both systems have 512 meg ram

 

[deuce]

(for all useful purposes 800 will denote pc-800 RDRam; 2100 and 2400 will denote pc-2100 and 2400 DDR SDRam) Well, RDRam is very reasonable right now... and for each 128 mb of 800 you are talking $10 extra over 2100... 2400 is the exact same price as 800. I haven't seen benchmark tests for 2400 but it may be close to the speed of 800, but I know 800 is faster than 2100 DDR. So you are talking max $40 extra with your 512 if you want 2100, same exact price for 2400. So it really isn't a question about price anymore. RDRam is faster than DDR SDRam because of the 400 mhz bus. Is it worth it? I would say yes.


About your clip Rikku... that was all true a year ago. Because of Intel's puch to keep working with RDRam has caused it's price to sky rocket down. Of course it was expensive at first. All new technology is expensive when it first comes out. As you can see... Intel also developed a chipset that runs with DDR SDRam so everyone is happy, while during that time they were still working at cutting down the cost of RDRam. I don't call that greedy... they are just trying to develop new and better technology. In a sense that is the only reason computers are here in the first place.


Bear... "is there any real difference between a P4 with RDram running a 1.5 ghz or a AMD 1.5 ghz with DDR SDRam?" Well, AMD claims a 1700 Xp to be the same as an Intel 1.7 Ghz, (when in fact the AMD is only 1.5 Ghz itself) so according to AMD raw speed right there is apparently faster with AMD... but when you add the extra speed with Intel's RDRam to it then for all usuful purposes it is basically the same because it isn't worth arguing over and isn't worth figuring out the real numbers... so remember this:

AMD is apparently faster in clock speed (by a 100 Mhz or so) so data will process slightly faster.

Intel is faster with RDRam so things will load into the memory a little faster.

As fast as the clock speed is it can still wait on the memory if it isn't loading fast enough.