RDRAM is cheaper than DDR !!!!!!!!

[SuRGV]

It's here (Memory pricing section) http://www.windrivers.com/

Just wonder........
SuRGV

[Greebe]

RDRam flopped completely, thus it's price fell through the floor. While DDR is brand spanking new to the market and has awsome proformance going for it.

[Rags]

Yah, the reasons why RDRAM flopped completely are because of price and poor chipsets from intel. This is starting to come around. Let's hope for some QDR SDRAM now

Rags

[Kosh Naranek]

What kind of DDR performance is you talking about ? compared to KT133 DDR ram sucks in my opinion.
RDRAM flopped....well alot of people were very very wrong about RDRAM performance so whether RDRAM is a flop remains to be seen. When Northwood appears with RDRAM interface included in the NORTH Bridge is when we will be able to judge whether RDRAM will be a flop or not.

[Himself]

RDRAM is a flop because it's proprietary and it was destined to be a flop because of that no matter what. Ram margins are too slim to add in liscensing fees to some patent happy company in the US. The problem with RDRAM is not the idea or the performance but that a company exists to collect royalties from it, it isn't in the public domain. For the PC market that just doesn't fit.

You could assume that the good numbers of the P4 will give RDRAM a boost, but you'll need people who will attribute that to RDRAM and not the MHz of the cpu. Techies might consider it, but the market Intel is after with the $$$ P4 doesn't understand/care that MHz doesn't equate to performance.

DDR performance has yet to be seen, the cpu and chipsets (not to mention applications) to take full advantage of that are not here yet. Prices are in line with it's scarcity and the lack of a platform to use them with. RDRAM has been out a year or more and still costs too much. If you want to compare prices between the two, look back to when RDRAM first became available.

The VIA KT133A chipset is promising, it provides a good upgrade path for folks with faster PC133 ram and has the same performance as DDR does currently. The KT133A is what the KT133 should have been and it's better naturally, but as an upgrade it just postpones the inevitable, IMO. If you buy a DDR mb and DDR ram, you can use your current AMD Athlon with it (given an unlocked cpu and a means to lower the multiplier). When a better DDR mb comes along you can keep the ram, and when a more ram hungry AMD cpu comes along you are already set. The only real concern is getting higher multipliers since the max is 12x, either the design will be about increases in the FSB and lower multiplier scales or something will change in the meaning of the multiplier mapping in general.

[Kosh Naranek]

Himself
All the things you are saying about DDR ram can also be said about RDRAM.Does this mean that DDR ram is a flop ?
RDRAM has been out a year, that's right, but there have been no proper chipset/platform to support it before now.
I don't like Rambus INC either, due to their insane licensing scheem, but that's no reason to dislike an otherwise promising technology which has yet to show it's full potential, but with the RDRAM interface connected directly to the cpu aka NorthWood we well be able to whether RDRAM will be a flop or what.
VIA has said that RDRAM is a great technology but very difficult to implement, which is one of the reasons why adoption has been slow.Furthermore Samsung says that they now have the required expertice to start utilizing RDRAM production and begin die shrinks beyond 0.18 m, samsung is also beginning to like RDRAM.

[Himself]

Originally posted by Kosh Naranek:
All the things you are saying about DDR ram can also be said about RDRAM.Does this mean that DDR ram is a flop ?

I said RDRAM is a flop on the PC because it is proprietary. DDR is not proprietary. It
doesn't follow.

The problem with RDRAM is not the idea or the performance

Guess you missed this part.

RDRAM has been out a year, that's right, but there have been no proper chipset/platform to support it before now.

DDR isn't even properly out yet, let alone had a year of practice with a cpu not designed around it. Comparing performance of today's DDR beta systems and RDRAM is like comparing SDRAM and RDRAM on a P3 when it first came out.

I don't like Rambus INC either, due to their insane licensing scheem, but that's no reason to dislike an otherwise promising technology which has yet to show it's full potential, but with the RDRAM interface connected directly to the cpu aka NorthWood we well be able to whether RDRAM will be a flop or what.

It's a very good reason not to like RDRAM. I like competition and one company defining and controlling a standard is anti competitive and against the very openness that made the PC a success. RDRAM will never be public domain, it's progress and the licensing control over the industry will kill the PC as an open platform unless the patents are proved invalid. How hard would it be to shut AMD out or give preference to Intel with current ram tech if the standard is defined and refined by one company, one that happens to be partially owned by Intel?

VIA has said that RDRAM is a great technology but very difficult to implement, which is one of the reasons why adoption has been slow.Furthermore Samsung says that they now have the required expertice to start utilizing RDRAM production and begin die shrinks beyond 0.18 m, samsung is also beginning to like RDRAM.

Take with a grain of salt.


[This message has been edited by Himself (edited 30 December 2000).]

[dZeus]

aren't SDRAM patents also owned by RAMBUS, and didn't they (RAMBUS) sued a lot of manufacturers to get the money for licence fees for SDRAM (and DDR SDRAM)????

So in the end, there is not that much difference between SDRAM/DDR SDRAM and RDRAM... only that Rambus Inc. is one of the most rotten companies in the world, but who's to blame? I think mostly the patent system that is so screwed up, that Rambus could get the patents of SDRAM

[Rick]

RAMBUS joined with all the other Ram makers to define the specs for SDRAM. After it was in production they turn around and mention "oh we own patents on this, this and this and therefore you owe us money". Funny how it only got mentioned after RDRAM was the hit it was expected to be.

[GT98]

RDRAM might be cheaper but your forgetting that it has to be used in pairs....so there goes your price advantage . Thats why Intel is packaging the P4s with 2 64MB RDRAM chips for a total of 128mb RAM.

Scott


------------------
Abit BH6 rev 1.0 Celeron 2-566@877mhz,256mb RAM,G400 MAX,SB Live! with Klipsch Promedia v2-400, Optiquest V95 19in montor, Asus 40x CD-ROM, Aopen 5x DVD-ROM,HP9110i 8x4x32 CD-RW,SupraMax 56k modem,WinME on Western Digital 30GB drive

[Rags]

Himself,

You really think that because Rambus is proprietary has anything to do with it's failure to now?

I hate Rambus, and I hate the way they do business. But I don't think these thoughts drive the way OEM's do business. The reason RDRAM has flopped is because the first consumer (not the 840) chipset had numerous problems, and Intel couldn't get enough P3's to market, along with price. When an OEM sees there is going to be a 1500 price difference between a 1Ghz K7 with SDRAM, and a 1Ghz P3 with RDRAM, and the P3 system will be back ordered, it's no wonder RDRAM hasn't sold. If the supply problems had been fixed at intel, we would be at the mercy of RDRAM for now with Intel systems. Plain and simple. Does it suck? Yah, it does. But on the plus side, RDRAM does ramp in speed very well with the processor. I just hope and pray that the FTC will put an end to this licensing BS.

Rags

[Himself]

Rags,

I don't see RDRAM as a failure at all, it does very well in the PS2 for example. Rambus does have a legit right to RDRAM after all, insofar as shared concepts between RDRAM and SDRAM/* are not included. If they would just stick with that and not pretend to have invented the concept of ram in general I wouldn't have a problem with them outside of the PC space. Even without the patent BS I wouldn't want the PC to use RDRAM as the defacto standard, Rambus would still control everything and they they like control too much.

As for the PC market not going well for them, well, there are a lot of factors, the very expensive cost to produce RDRAM being one of course, lack of public interest to date, lack of memory hogging applications, greed, not wanting to pay another company royalties on top of having to retool for a complicated technology, etc, etc. No, it wasn't some idealism from VIA and friend's, but long term prospects and dependence on another company are factors. VIA wants to get away from depending on other companies, they want to integrate for the bottom feeder market with their own cpus and video/audio solutions. Nothing has really changed because the P4 has shown up.

As for the FTC, they can possibly turn off the Rambus legal team for a while
, but it doesn't change the nature of them as a proprietary solution for an open platform in the PC space.

[Pace]

Btw, just thought I should mention that RDRAM is DDR

And the reason I didn't buy an i820 board was because of the price of RDRAM, and the SDRAM problems. Dunno if I'm in the majority though...

Scott, 2 64MB Rimms are ~$160 whilst a single 128MB DDR Dimm is ~$180 - so the price advantage does still exist...dunno where your addition went wrong

Paul.

[GT98]

DOH!!!!!!!!!

Boy I've been off work since the 22nd, my mind must be mush

Scott


------------------
Abit BH6 rev 1.0 Celeron 2-566@877mhz,256mb RAM,G400 MAX,SB Live! with Klipsch Promedia v2-400, Optiquest V95 19in montor, Asus 40x CD-ROM, Aopen 5x DVD-ROM,HP9110i 8x4x32 CD-RW,SupraMax 56k modem,WinME on Western Digital 30GB drive