DDR memory prices are dropping...

[SickBeast]

I know that predicting the future is nearly impossible, but I was hoping that some of you may have some knowledge of the workings of the volatile memory market.

I have heard/read that June is typically the best time to buy memory, and I even read on the Inquirer not long ago that this June was going to be a good time to buy.

So...it's June right now! Mid-June to be precise. The price today in Toronto for 512MB of PC3200 RAM is $114. That's down from $128 a week or two ago. Should I wait for the price to continue to plummet, or just load up now?

 

[dennisjai215]

ram prices do look pretty nice right now.. i'd say better safe than sorry =D up to you

 

[AristoV300]

Well my guess is that the price should drop once DDR2 chipset motherboards start hitting the market in full force.

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: AristoV300
Well my guess is that the price should drop once DDR2 chipset motherboards start hitting the market in full force.

Agreed, but who knows when the Hell that will be...

 

[devrynerd]

Bought one stick of 512 MB DDR 500 last night. Decent price, $109 I guess, not too aggressive though. I'll buy another when prices drop more (fingers crossed). I did hear Ram companies were upping DDR just so DDRII wouldn't be that bad looking. Whatever... It's all a conspiracy I tell ya. DDR is really a joke, it's definately not double, SATA is actually theoretically slower than IDE, but the drives do push data faster.

"..ohhhhh it makes me wonder...."

Ok, maybe it's not exactly stair way to heaven, but ya know. I bought half now, will buy more later.

 

[zephyrprime]

As far as ram prices go, just keep checking fatwallet if you really want a deal. I got some kingston pc3200 last week for $60 shipped.

DDR is really a joke, it's definately not double, SATA is actually theoretically slower than IDE, but the drives do push data faster.

Uh, ok. Care to back that up?

 

[devrynerd]

hmm... testing my ability to remember last term's I/O course.

Welp, I'm wrong. As I was typing what my professor had taught, I went to get more facts.... I originally thought the "Ultra ATA 133" was 133 MBps, however he had taught that it was actually 133 MHz. Multiply that by the width, and you'll receive a much larger # than Sata's 150 MBps... My apologies. Just goes to show, question your superiors... just not to their face, unless in a political protest After very lil research, my original thought of 133 being the MBps is correct. My apologies, I'll eat crow tomorrow w/ my head bowed and tail between my legs.

As for the DDR... it's not double the speed, but I don't blame them for using the name. My IDE/SATA comment was what I was backing on... Ram's problems is in the delay of sending & receiving. Something revolutionary is a must to overcome our bottlneck. I mean, the processors are nearing light speed (1/3.4 GHz), and the bus system has to catch up. Doesn't matter how many processors we throw on chip.

Sorry for my faulty information... my apologies.

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: devrynerd
hmm... testing my ability to remember last term's I/O course.

Welp, I'm wrong. As I was typing what my professor had taught, I went to get more facts.... I originally thought the "Ultra ATA 133" was 133 MBps, however he had taught that it was actually 133 MHz. Multiply that by the width, and you'll receive a much larger # than Sata's 150 MBps... My apologies. Just goes to show, question your superiors... just not to their face, unless in a political protest After very lil research, my original thought of 133 being the MBps is correct. My apologies, I'll eat crow tomorrow w/ my head bowed and tail between my legs.

As for the DDR... it's not double the speed, but I don't blame them for using the name. My IDE/SATA comment was what I was backing on... Ram's problems is in the delay of sending & receiving. Something revolutionary is a must to overcome our bottlneck. I mean, the processors are nearing light speed (1/3.4 GHz), and the bus system has to catch up. Doesn't matter how many processors we throw on chip.

Sorry for my faulty information... my apologies.

Professors are wrong a lot. I had one tell the class that it would be a better idea to buy a 20GB HDD than a 40GB HDD at the same price because the cluster size on the smaller HDD would be more efficient. Too bad the physical size has nothing to do with the logical size at which you set partitions, which is what determines cluster size. I bet some dumbass went out and bought a smaller HDD beause of his advice too.

 

[anthrax]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

Originally posted by: devrynerd
hmm... testing my ability to remember last term's I/O course.

Welp, I'm wrong. As I was typing what my professor had taught, I went to get more facts.... I originally thought the "Ultra ATA 133" was 133 MBps, however he had taught that it was actually 133 MHz. Multiply that by the width, and you'll receive a much larger # than Sata's 150 MBps... My apologies. Just goes to show, question your superiors... just not to their face, unless in a political protest After very lil research, my original thought of 133 being the MBps is correct. My apologies, I'll eat crow tomorrow w/ my head bowed and tail between my legs.

As for the DDR... it's not double the speed, but I don't blame them for using the name. My IDE/SATA comment was what I was backing on... Ram's problems is in the delay of sending & receiving. Something revolutionary is a must to overcome our bottlneck. I mean, the processors are nearing light speed (1/3.4 GHz), and the bus system has to catch up. Doesn't matter how many processors we throw on chip.

Sorry for my faulty information... my apologies.

Professors are wrong a lot. I had one tell the class that it would be a better idea to buy a 20GB HDD than a 40GB HDD at the same price because the cluster size on the smaller HDD would be more efficient. Too bad the physical size has nothing to do with the logical size at which you set partitions, which is what determines cluster size. I bet some dumbass went out and bought a smaller HDD beause of his advice too.

2 smaller drives are typically faster than 1 larger drive.
Let take WD-raptors for example..... A single 74GB has a transfer rate of 71MB/S.. A single 36GB raptor is around 47MB/S .... i.e. with 2 you can get 94MB.......36% faster transfer rate.

I/O rates for a 74GB raptor is 606 I/O per sec..... A single 36GB raptor has I/O rate of 500....hmm 2 = 1000 I/O per second...65% more I/O second.

Does it really make alot of difference ? For desktop use, probabaly not alot.....for a Oracle 10g database the difference is pretty big.

 

[zephyrprime]

Just goes to show, question your superiors

My OS textbook I used in school had a few simple errors in it concerning both OS's and hardware. Pretty lame for a book in it's third edition.

 

[Chaotic42]

Still $140 for Kingston PC2100-R.

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: anthrax

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

Originally posted by: devrynerd
hmm... testing my ability to remember last term's I/O course.

Welp, I'm wrong. As I was typing what my professor had taught, I went to get more facts.... I originally thought the "Ultra ATA 133" was 133 MBps, however he had taught that it was actually 133 MHz. Multiply that by the width, and you'll receive a much larger # than Sata's 150 MBps... My apologies. Just goes to show, question your superiors... just not to their face, unless in a political protest After very lil research, my original thought of 133 being the MBps is correct. My apologies, I'll eat crow tomorrow w/ my head bowed and tail between my legs.

As for the DDR... it's not double the speed, but I don't blame them for using the name. My IDE/SATA comment was what I was backing on... Ram's problems is in the delay of sending & receiving. Something revolutionary is a must to overcome our bottlneck. I mean, the processors are nearing light speed (1/3.4 GHz), and the bus system has to catch up. Doesn't matter how many processors we throw on chip.

Sorry for my faulty information... my apologies.

Professors are wrong a lot. I had one tell the class that it would be a better idea to buy a 20GB HDD than a 40GB HDD at the same price because the cluster size on the smaller HDD would be more efficient. Too bad the physical size has nothing to do with the logical size at which you set partitions, which is what determines cluster size. I bet some dumbass went out and bought a smaller HDD beause of his advice too.

2 smaller drives are typically faster than 1 larger drive.
Let take WD-raptors for example..... A single 74GB has a transfer rate of 71MB/S.. A single 36GB raptor is around 47MB/S .... i.e. with 2 you can get 94MB.......36% faster transfer rate.

I/O rates for a 74GB raptor is 606 I/O per sec..... A single 36GB raptor has I/O rate of 500....hmm 2 = 1000 I/O per second...65% more I/O second.

Does it really make alot of difference ? For desktop use, probabaly not alot.....for a Oracle 10g database the difference is pretty big.

He didn't say buy two drives and put them in a RAID array. He said buy ONE 20GB HDD instead of ONE 40GB HDD because of the cluster size issue. Even so, he still would have been wrong had he said it that way because he said the 20GB and 40GB drives cost the same amount, so I would rather have 2 x 40GB drives than 2 x 20GB drives, wouldn't you?

 

[Oyeve]

DDR prices will actually be higher when DDR2 becomes standard. Its all about supply and demand. Standard Sdram is expensive as is Rdram. Old memory technology will cost more eventually. Buy up now!

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
DDR prices will actually be higher when DDR2 becomes standard. Its all about supply and demand. Standard Sdram is expensive as is Rdram. Old memory technology will cost more eventually. Buy up now!

Ah yes, but there will be a gap between DDR2 becoming widely available and DDR2 becoming standard.

 

[NokiaDude]

RAM prices are f'ed up. A year ago, 512mb of Kingston DDR333 HyperX RAM was $90!!!!! Now it's $135!!!!!!! I need 1GB of RAM but $135 is just asking too much for DDR333 RAM.