Originally posted by: regnez
Originally posted by: w00t
I haven't had any problems with DDR-2 but It's pretty expensive at the moment for no real performance increase the only reason most of us switched was due to new platforms only supporting it
DDR-3 should be better but I don't see it happening for a while since DDR-2 came out not too long ago and it's becoming a standard now.
I am going to disagree with just about everything you said. DDR2 does not cost much more than DDR right now, unless you go for the ultra high-end oc'ing DDR2. You can get quality DDR2 800 for the same price as quality DDR.
And most of us did not switch only due to the new platforms supporting it. DDR2 offers real performance increases over DDR, and allows MUCH more headroom when overclocking.
But, I do agree that DDR3 is going to be better than DDR2.
I think you are completely incorrect in your assessment of how fast DDR2 was adopted and why.
While it's true that DDR2 memory has a theoretical 25% bandwidth advantage over plain DDR, in testing on motherboards with slots for both, admittedly a VIA chipset so not the best performing chopset out there, DDR-400 performed quite well against DDR2-667.
In running SuperPi 2M, the difference was 2 seconds. Not exactly a huge difference.
In application testing, DDR-400 again stood right along side DDR2-667 and actually bested it in one or two apps.......a Nero Recode 2 of Office Space DVD and a WINRAR 3.6 602MB ZIP.
In gaming, at res up to 1280x1024, there was little difference to show and most was tied to GPU, not memory.
(These benchmarks were taken from Anandtech's testing of the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA motherboard.)
You have to remember DDR2 has been around over 2 1/2 years, yet is just becoming the only memory to consider out there......at least since Conroe came out. Wait.......is that a platform choice now being introduced into the mix?
Xbit article showing Corsiar shipping both XMS and Value DDR2 in June, 2004.
Yes, it is, because DDR2 memory languished on the desktop space before Conroe's introduction. Prior to C2D, the hot performance setup was an Athlon 64 system, and your choice was S939 or AM2. Interestingly, while both chipsets were out there and easily obtained, AM2 certainly did not drive S939 off the market, because it just didn't perform noticeably better. The memory certainly didn't help it along.
The reason S939 died off was strictly a choice AMD made in discontinuing S939......and that's all. DDR2 had little to nothing to do with it. DDR memory was and still is performing quite well.
This can be seen by the still posed question of who makes motherboards that accept DDR memory and Conroe cups. And there has been testing that shows DDR and DDR2 memory have little performance differences, as I showed you above.
And DDR2 memory certainly didn't take off in sales just because Intel released the 975 and 965 chipsets that took DDR2 memory.....rather, until Conroe was released, both chipsets were rather ignored.
So, between 2004, when DDR2 was released, and 2006, when Cnroe hit the market sparking a HUGE growth in DDR2 sales, what was pushing DDR2 to market?
The answer is NOTEBOOK computers. DDR2, during this time, was the perfect choice for notebooks because of its lower power consumption.
Consumer appetite for notebook computers this year has helped prod the industry shift to DDR2 despite the higher costs. Although early versions of DDR2 are only slightly faster than DDR-400, DDR2 chips consume less battery power, an important consideration for laptop users.
The DDR2 chips were supposed to take over as the world's most widely used PC memory chip last year, but high prices, the marginal performance boost they offer compared to existing DDR chips, and other factors caused the timeframe to be pushed back, analysts say. In the interim, the original DDR chips, running at 400MHz (megahertz), or DDR-400, have remained the most popular memory for PCs.
Taken from an InfoWorld article, August 11, 2005.
Notice the article is dated August 11, 2005, right? If DDR2 was so much better, why was it still languishing at the end of 2005 and still being beaten by plain ole DDR?
Analyst firm iSuppli Corporation has projected that the DDR2 market will grow from 35 percent of total DRAM production this year to 68 percent in 2006.
On Tuesday, iSuppli raised its forecast for the DRAM industry from "negative" to "neutral," citing a stabilization in prices across the industry.
DDR-2 memories captured only 17.2 percent of worldwide sales in the first quarter, with the bulk of the remainder accounted for by DDR, the firm found.
This from an article on ExtremeTech in July, 2005. Interesting how, a year after DDR2 was introduced, penetration of the market was only 17.2%. Hmmmmm.....
Link to article here.
No, I think DDR2's domination can be quite easily demonstrated to be tied to architectural choices......socket AM2 and the cessation of S939 cpus from AMD, and the introduction of Conroe cpus. Remember, when Conroe hit the market, there was a huge surge in demand for DDR2 memory as the better performing motherboards required DDR2 memory, and the prices skyrocketed in response to the demand. The prices were half what they were before Conroe's introduction, and I think that in itself demonstrates that DDR2 was nowhere in demand, even by enthusiasts before Conroe.
DDR2 does perform somewhat better, but it's not so dramatic that it shames DDR...quite the opposite. DDR memory performs much on par with DDR2-667, the standard modules out there. The only thing that really drove DDR2 to the forefront was a change in architecture; without that change, DDR may well still have been the dominant memory.
Facebook
Twitter