Difference between DDR and RD RAM, and recommendation for new system?
I am looking for an explanation as to the difference between RD (Rambus) RAM and DDR (double data rate) RAM. I know RD is a lot more expensive. Perhaps a user could point me to a website or article on the subject. I am considering buying a new MB/CPU for my PC and I have a choice between RD and DDR. I have been told Rambus is better for server applications and DDR is better for PC use. I am not much of a gamer and I do not do photo or movie editing. I do run some pretty heavy duty analysis (simulation) SW on a stand-alone PC. I want the fastest overall response.
When you frame your answers please consider that I consider myself to have a novice to moderate level of understanding of how memory works.
Thank you
When you frame your answers please consider that I consider myself to have a novice to moderate level of understanding of how memory works.
Thank you
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>but the price gap has narrowed considerably as of late
Really? Hmm... then why is PC1066 RDRAM 256Mb $79 (lowest price on pricewatch.com) when PC3200 DDR 256Mb is $29??
I agree PC600 RDRAM is less expensive than it used to be ($42 on pricewatch.com) , but let's compare things with similar bandwidth.
Really? Hmm... then why is PC1066 RDRAM 256Mb $79 (lowest price on pricewatch.com) when PC3200 DDR 256Mb is $29??
I agree PC600 RDRAM is less expensive than it used to be ($42 on pricewatch.com) , but let's compare things with similar bandwidth.
Ah well.
>A big difference that made RDRAM desirable (once, but not now) was one of bandwidth
Really? RDRAM is just an ordinary memory with a complicated hard to predict performance interface. Intel was embarrased when their top line chipset with RDRAM was slower that DDR.
Rambus, a company run mostly by lawyers, attempted to extort money from the industry by offering some generic technology to an industry standards group, and then attempted to request royalities after the standard was adopted. The fraud case has not yet been settled.
Really? RDRAM is just an ordinary memory with a complicated hard to predict performance interface. Intel was embarrased when their top line chipset with RDRAM was slower that DDR.
Rambus, a company run mostly by lawyers, attempted to extort money from the industry by offering some generic technology to an industry standards group, and then attempted to request royalities after the standard was adopted. The fraud case has not yet been settled.
>>Really?
Uh yeah, really. As I mentioned before, When DDR first came on the market, it was running at a maximum of 2.1GB/s of bandwidth. RDRAM at the time was doing 3.2GB/s.
At that time, RDRAM was a full 50% faster.
Uh yeah, really. As I mentioned before, When DDR first came on the market, it was running at a maximum of 2.1GB/s of bandwidth. RDRAM at the time was doing 3.2GB/s.
At that time, RDRAM was a full 50% faster.
>At that time, RDRAM was a full 50% faster
Theoretical datasheet speed. Never happened in a real system.
Theoretical datasheet speed. Never happened in a real system.
Well it was certainly happening in sandra benchmarks, as well as others, and showed a tremendous difference for serious workstation applications for people using it. I've witnessed that firsthand and talked to many high-end workstation users about it.
That sounds like real life to me... unless my high-end workstation users were lying to me, which I doubt.
That sounds like real life to me... unless my high-end workstation users were lying to me, which I doubt.
desertratr? Do you need more information?
ASKER
I think I have enough information, especially with the links
Thanks all
Thanks all
Well then you should accept an answer, or if more than one experts comments helped you, you should split points among those who helped you.
Thanks desertratr,
AlbertaBeef
EE Microchips Page Editor
Thanks desertratr,
AlbertaBeef
EE Microchips Page Editor
Im not sure if you guys metioned this but RD was made for p4's due to the p4's high speed but need for bandwidth. DDR was made for AMD, which has high bandwidth but needs more speed.
RDRAM wasn't made FOR P4's, and DDR wasn't made FOR AMD, it was just that intel and AMD adopted two different platforms.
RDRAM was actually included in the nintendo64 long before P4's were on the market.
Rambus was incorporated in 1990. In 1996 though Rambus and Intel disclosed an agreement to evolve chipsets and DRAMs that incorporate Rambus interfaces to meet requirements of PC main memory. This however was 6 years after Rambus was incorporated, 4 years after Rambus Japan was incorporated and a year after the nintendo64 was using RDRAM.
So to say "RD was made for P4's" is an incorrect statement.
The same goes for DDR. DDR was created by a consortium of RAM manufacturers, to have a product that could compete against Rambus (RDRAM) for pc memory, and was not created for any specific platform. It was AMD who first decided to design their 760 chipset with DDR support - so AMD designed their chipset product for DDR, not the other way around.
So to say "DDR was made for AMD" is also incorrect.
Intel then designed their chipsets to support DDR also.
*Point of note: chipsets are always designed for RAM, NOT the other way around.
RDRAM was actually included in the nintendo64 long before P4's were on the market.
Rambus was incorporated in 1990. In 1996 though Rambus and Intel disclosed an agreement to evolve chipsets and DRAMs that incorporate Rambus interfaces to meet requirements of PC main memory. This however was 6 years after Rambus was incorporated, 4 years after Rambus Japan was incorporated and a year after the nintendo64 was using RDRAM.
So to say "RD was made for P4's" is an incorrect statement.
The same goes for DDR. DDR was created by a consortium of RAM manufacturers, to have a product that could compete against Rambus (RDRAM) for pc memory, and was not created for any specific platform. It was AMD who first decided to design their 760 chipset with DDR support - so AMD designed their chipset product for DDR, not the other way around.
So to say "DDR was made for AMD" is also incorrect.
Intel then designed their chipsets to support DDR also.
*Point of note: chipsets are always designed for RAM, NOT the other way around.
desertratr: Out of curiousity, what about this answer qualifies for a 'B' grade? With the amount of information provided, I believe it should have been an 'A'.
Can you explain please?
Can you explain please?
TGHI