Honestly, will DDR add THAT much more performance?
- Thread starter KDOG
- Start date
Why not just get both? 
Buy that MSI motherboard now, and if the DDR boards look appealing upgrade in a couple months to DDR.
Buy that MSI motherboard now, and if the DDR boards look appealing upgrade in a couple months to DDR.
It depends on the application. There are some that will see a huge, several CPU speed grade class boost. Games like Quake III and Unreal/UT which are very memory-intensive may run up to 20% faster in lower resolutions on DDR platform compared to SDR, assuming all other things (CPU, video card, quality of AGP implementation etc) are equal. Some high-end applications could benefit even more. This is all speculation, of course, and we'll have to wait for benches on final products before passing judgement on DDR SDRAM. But so far it looks promising - slowest implementation, PC1600 (100mhz DDR SDRAM) has double the bandwidth of SDRAM without any latency penalties.
As always, whether to wait or not really depends on your needs. If you need a new system, go for the 1.2Ghz Athlon and that excellent MSI K7Tpro2 now. If you can wait (it'll be at least a month until retail AMD-760 mobos will appear in volume), by all means do so because in IT business something better is always around the corner.
As always, whether to wait or not really depends on your needs. If you need a new system, go for the 1.2Ghz Athlon and that excellent MSI K7Tpro2 now. If you can wait (it'll be at least a month until retail AMD-760 mobos will appear in volume), by all means do so because in IT business something better is always around the corner.
Yes, in lower resolutions you will notice the improvement with DDR. Unfortunately, nobody play's at 640x480 anymore. Sure, people love to benchmark Quake3 at 640x480 to show you how fast framerates can be, but let's get real here. You didn't shell out thousands of dollars for that high-end gaming rig to run it at 640x480.
Now, let's say at 1280*1024 your getting an average of 60fps in Quake3. (most ppl here aren't even getting that). With an expected 8-15% improvement using DDR (I'll use 15% for this example) you now get a whopping 69fps. An extra 9fps. Certainly nothing your going to significantly notice. The only thing you WILL notice is about 400$ less in your wallet for upgrading to DDR. Is it worth it? Only you can decide.
You can count on the second generation DDR boards coming out rather quickly after the first generation are released. Many ppl will not be happy with the performance increase. Some will be happy with the upgrade, many will regret it. You best be waiting until spring to better evaluate this cost/performance ratio when the majority of manufacturers have their boards out. If you buy in haste, you may end up regretting it.
If you already own a PC133 based system with a decent motherboard such as the Abit KT7 or Asus A7V, upgrading to DDR won't knock your socks off. You'd be better off spending your money on a faster harddisk such as a IBM Deskstar 75GXP.
Now, let's say at 1280*1024 your getting an average of 60fps in Quake3. (most ppl here aren't even getting that). With an expected 8-15% improvement using DDR (I'll use 15% for this example) you now get a whopping 69fps. An extra 9fps. Certainly nothing your going to significantly notice. The only thing you WILL notice is about 400$ less in your wallet for upgrading to DDR. Is it worth it? Only you can decide.
You can count on the second generation DDR boards coming out rather quickly after the first generation are released. Many ppl will not be happy with the performance increase. Some will be happy with the upgrade, many will regret it. You best be waiting until spring to better evaluate this cost/performance ratio when the majority of manufacturers have their boards out. If you buy in haste, you may end up regretting it.
If you already own a PC133 based system with a decent motherboard such as the Abit KT7 or Asus A7V, upgrading to DDR won't knock your socks off. You'd be better off spending your money on a faster harddisk such as a IBM Deskstar 75GXP.
How in the hell, assuming system memory is NOT the bottleneck & video memory IS the bottleneck, are you going to get 8 to 15% in crease in frame rate in Quake 3? Are you guys saying that in Quake 3 that the app is waiting for the system memory?
fkloster -
1280x1024 might be valid with next generation video cards. With the current generation 640x480 or 800x600 would've been a better example.
1280x1024 might be valid with next generation video cards. With the current generation 640x480 or 800x600 would've been a better example.
Rudee: It's all about bragging rights, as always when talking about systems beyond 700-800Mhz
fkloster: Quake III is extremely memory-intensive in low resolutions. This is easily witnessed by comparing VIA Apollo Pro 133A and i440BX running at 100mhz FSB and PC100 SDRAM with the same CPU - i440BX system is several percents faster than VIA 133A because of lower memory latencies. In lower resolutions with a fast video card, Quake III engine spends lots of it's time on geometry visibility algorighms and game world physics modelling, and that kinds of tasks greatly depend on memory performance.
fkloster: Quake III is extremely memory-intensive in low resolutions. This is easily witnessed by comparing VIA Apollo Pro 133A and i440BX running at 100mhz FSB and PC100 SDRAM with the same CPU - i440BX system is several percents faster than VIA 133A because of lower memory latencies. In lower resolutions with a fast video card, Quake III engine spends lots of it's time on geometry visibility algorighms and game world physics modelling, and that kinds of tasks greatly depend on memory performance.
<< i440BX system is several percents faster than VIA 133A because of lower memory latencies >>
I thought it was a fact that DDR memory has the same (...if not higher) latencys that SDR memory has? So why would a DDR system be faster in quake 3?
DDR memory does indeed have the same latency as SDRAM. Or fairly close. (I believe PC1600 has the same latency, while PC2100 will be slightly higher)
The difference between the VIA133A and i440BX is due to the memory controller in the chipsets. The i440BX has a great memory controller that is extremely efficient. Remember, just because a certain type of memory has the same specs in any system, the system wide specs can change. VIA is known for not having the best memory controller.
Now with that said, Q3 will definitely be faster on a DDR system. It will be faster due to memory bandwidth, not latency. It does help tho that the latency will remain the same (or slight rise) compared to normal SDRAM.
RDRAM does not currently show these improvements for several reasons:
1.Fairly High latency
2.Poor chipset implementation (i820 sucks)
3.The 133Mhz FSB is a big bottleneck
The difference between the VIA133A and i440BX is due to the memory controller in the chipsets. The i440BX has a great memory controller that is extremely efficient. Remember, just because a certain type of memory has the same specs in any system, the system wide specs can change. VIA is known for not having the best memory controller.
Now with that said, Q3 will definitely be faster on a DDR system. It will be faster due to memory bandwidth, not latency. It does help tho that the latency will remain the same (or slight rise) compared to normal SDRAM.
RDRAM does not currently show these improvements for several reasons:
1.Fairly High latency
2.Poor chipset implementation (i820 sucks)
3.The 133Mhz FSB is a big bottleneck
I thought it was a fact that DDR memory has the same (...if not higher) latencys that SDR memory has? So why would a DDR system be faster in quake 3?
Because effective, real world bandwidth depends on latency. PC100 SDRAM with low latencies achieves much better troughput than PC100 SDRAM with conservative latencies. DDR SDRAM's higher peak bandwidth combined with nearly equal latency to SDRAM will translate to higher overall performance.
About DRDRAM, as _Silk_ mentioned, much of RDRAM's poor performance on i820 and i840 platforms is caused by systems limited CPU-to-memory bandwidth, namely 133Mhz GTL+ FSB. Most of DRDRAM's potential is still to be revealed in PC world. I expect P4/i850 with it's QDR FSB and dual channel DRDRAM implementation to be at least equal to PC2100 DDR SDRAM systems in performance - despite higher latency, dualchannel PC800 DRDRAM has a substansial bandwidth advantage (3.2Gb/s vs. 2.1Gb/s).
Because effective, real world bandwidth depends on latency. PC100 SDRAM with low latencies achieves much better troughput than PC100 SDRAM with conservative latencies. DDR SDRAM's higher peak bandwidth combined with nearly equal latency to SDRAM will translate to higher overall performance.
About DRDRAM, as _Silk_ mentioned, much of RDRAM's poor performance on i820 and i840 platforms is caused by systems limited CPU-to-memory bandwidth, namely 133Mhz GTL+ FSB. Most of DRDRAM's potential is still to be revealed in PC world. I expect P4/i850 with it's QDR FSB and dual channel DRDRAM implementation to be at least equal to PC2100 DDR SDRAM systems in performance - despite higher latency, dualchannel PC800 DRDRAM has a substansial bandwidth advantage (3.2Gb/s vs. 2.1Gb/s).
I'd go with the 1.2Ghz now. Grab yourself 256MB of Mushkin Rev2 PC133 222 and an MSi K7TPro2 and you'll be very happy.
in a quake3 tournament I'd play at 640x480x16 to get absolute maxxed frame rated. But when I play myself I like 10x7x32 (yes I know my V3 can't do it..I like I don't get it now) and at that resolution memory bandwidth on the video card is the big limiter. Z and Frame Buffer reads and writes sucking memory bandwidth on the card. memory bandwidth on the CPU won't help near as much.
You'll get some increase, but I don't think it would be worth the extra cost.
Myself I plan to sit on my SDRAM for at least another 6 months, and see what comes of it. I don't think DDR will be that big a deal. It certainly won't do anything drastic like in the GeForce.
Edit: Wow look at that, I agree with fkloster, that doesn't happen very often. heheheheh
in a quake3 tournament I'd play at 640x480x16 to get absolute maxxed frame rated. But when I play myself I like 10x7x32 (yes I know my V3 can't do it..I like I don't get it now) and at that resolution memory bandwidth on the video card is the big limiter. Z and Frame Buffer reads and writes sucking memory bandwidth on the card. memory bandwidth on the CPU won't help near as much.
You'll get some increase, but I don't think it would be worth the extra cost.
Myself I plan to sit on my SDRAM for at least another 6 months, and see what comes of it. I don't think DDR will be that big a deal. It certainly won't do anything drastic like in the GeForce.
Edit: Wow look at that, I agree with fkloster, that doesn't happen very often. heheheheh
when you compare 128 mb sdr pc133 and 128 mb ddr pc266, the prices will be very similar but the performance will be improved...in some cases, dramatically. wait for the amd 760 boards to come out and buy that and some ddr ram to go with it
Correction, the prices should be similar, but most certainly wont be.
The cost is like 5% above the cost of usual SDR, but since its the latest cutting edge stuff, manufacturers will probabaly charge an arm and leg for it.
The cost is like 5% above the cost of usual SDR, but since its the latest cutting edge stuff, manufacturers will probabaly charge an arm and leg for it.
I'd definately get the MSI or the A7V Pro and 1.2Ghz Athlon since no one seems to be in a hurry to introduce DDR to the masses.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter