Is RDRAM bad?

[Mysteriouskk]

I have a dell dimension 8200, and it supports only RDRAM. If the speeds on the rdram is faster, why don't people get rdram instead of ddr ram?

 

[kamper]

$$$ and therefore no one makes chipsets for rdram anymore

 

[Viper96720]

Speed isn't faster than ddr like it used to be. Not much boards available support it. It was the fastest ram before.

 

[VTEC01EX]

Yep... I'm in the same situation with my PC. RDRAM seemed like a great idea at the time (and I'm still glad I did it over the other P4 alternative at the time, PC133 SDRAM). Now I just have to find 2x256 PC800 sticks that I don't have to sell a kidney to obtain!

 

[dullard]

DDR has finally caught up to the speeds of 2 year old RDRAM. Plus DDR is much cheaper (all the companies producing RDRAM make a profit on RDRAM, while companies are losing money and going bankrupt selling DDR). Thus it was an unwinnable battle for the faster RDRAM.

 

[Dman877]

RDRAM was higher in latency though if I recall. So it was faster in some ways, slower in others.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Dman877
RDRAM was higher in latency though if I recall. So it was faster in some ways, slower in others.

That is definatly true of PC600 RDRAM. Your statement is possibly true for PC800 RDRAM (depends on what quality of DDR we are talking about here). However, PC1066 RDRAM had roughly as low latency as any DDR available. RDRAM latency decreases the faster the speed. With DDR, the faster the speed, the more difficult it becomes to have a low latency.

 

It is good...I like it. However, prices drive me away from going any higher than my current 512 mb. In fact, prices (and lack of support) drive me towards DDR2 for my next upgrade...but I will wait until there is some difference in DDR2 and DDR.