Intel said to stop manufacturing RDRAM-based chipsets

[NFS4]

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2003/05/20&pages=04&seq=17

 

[sandorski]

It's about time, though not surprising.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I don't think that RDRAM ever really had a place in the market because its price is way too high. In my mind, they could have had a chance if they did two things:

1. Made a dual channel RAM solution allowing more "cheaper" RDRAM modules to be used with a 533mhz FSB cpu or thed new 800mhz FSB cpus.

2. Lowered Prices

To me, RDRAM is a failure due to price and performance.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
I don't think that RDRAM ever really had a place in the market because its price is way too high. In my mind, they could have had a chance if they did two things:

1. Made a dual channel RAM solution allowing more "cheaper" RDRAM modules to be used with a 533mhz FSB cpu or thed new 800mhz FSB cpus.

2. Lowered Prices

To me, RDRAM is a failure due to price and performance.

I agree!

And RDRAM prices will prolly shot through the roof due to demand. Better stock up now if you plan to upgrade and use RDRAM!

 

[thraxes]

Yup... another nice technology gone before its time almost completely due to dumb management.

If the prices weren't so high and the tech. licencing not so stringent then it might have had a chance.

 

[dexvx]

Oh no, Intel is going to phase out 2 year old technology. The surprise and shock.

1. Made a dual channel RAM solution allowing more "cheaper" RDRAM modules to be used with a 533mhz FSB cpu or thed new 800mhz FSB cpus.

533FSB cpu's can be coupled with PC800 RDRam. RDRam was already dual channel, it has been since 3 years ago with the i840.

2. Lowered Prices

There was a time when PC800 RDRam was cheaper than PC2100 DDR SDRam in sticks less than 512MB in size. But RDRam rose in price for some weird reason.

 

[peter7921]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
I don't think that RDRAM ever really had a place in the market because its price is way too high. In my mind, they could have had a chance if they did two things:

1. Made a dual channel RAM solution allowing more "cheaper" RDRAM modules to be used with a 533mhz FSB cpu or thed new 800mhz FSB cpus.

2. Lowered Prices

To me, RDRAM is a failure due to price and performance.

Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't RDRAM already a Dual channel solution, except for the one board Asus made(they bundled a stick of RAM with that board if i am not mistaken).

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: peter7921

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
I don't think that RDRAM ever really had a place in the market because its price is way too high. In my mind, they could have had a chance if they did two things:

1. Made a dual channel RAM solution allowing more "cheaper" RDRAM modules to be used with a 533mhz FSB cpu or thed new 800mhz FSB cpus.

2. Lowered Prices

To me, RDRAM is a failure due to price and performance.

Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't RDRAM already a Dual channel solution, except for the one board Asus made(they bundled a stick of RAM with that board if i am not mistaken).

No actually the P4T533 was a dual channel RDRam board. It only took 1 ram because the ram itself was basically dual channel on a stick (32bit vs traditional 16bit). Intel was working on a Quad Channel RDRam solution (64bit), which would mean 2x 32bit sticks. PC1066 on such a device would yield 8.4GB/sec.

 

[astroview]

sigh, if only Intel had used DDR 2 years ago, maybe we'd be using DDR II now. Who knows?

 

[SexyK]

I don't know why every still craps RDRAM. Up until i875 came out a few weeks ago, my 18 month old PC1066 system was still the fastest platform for the P4 out there. Fastest platform period, actaully. And RDRAM cost me basically no premium over the DDR solutions of the time. I wish it would stick around, i love th etechnology. Looks like PC3200 for me now anyway.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I don't know why every still craps RDRAM. Up until i875 came out a few weeks ago, my 18 month old PC1066 system was still the fastest platform for the P4 out there. Fastest platform period, actaully. And RDRAM cost me basically no premium over the DDR solutions of the time. I wish it would stick around, i love th etechnology. Looks like PC3200 for me now anyway.

As mentioned in this thread, RDRAM is technically very nice, in fact, likely had a better future than SDRAM - however, the licensing restrictions made it too much of a locked-in platform, and some people don't like being locked into things (although a surprising number don't seem to care).

 

[Chobits]

Its not like its a blow to Rambus though since they own SDRAM...right? From what I know they design the technology and sit back and get liscensing fees so in reality the memory makers are the ones getting screwed. Or do I have this backwards?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Chobits
Its not like its a blow to Rambus though since they own SDRAM...right? From what I know they design the technology and sit back and get liscensing fees so in reality the memory makers are the ones getting screwed. Or do I have this backwards?

No, from the looks of it, Rambus will get some $$ everytime a DDR module is sold. Of couse the big DDR companies are fighting this litigation wise, but its just a matter of how long they can delay payments.

 

[zephyrprime]

Why is RDRAM so expensive anyway?

 

[grant2]

Initially expensive because it was a new process, produced in low volume, with a high defect rate. (individual chips could not be tested, just individual modules AFAIK)

 

[ZimZum]

I'm surprised Ice9 hasnt chimed in by now.