• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RAMBUS memory size benchmarks?

F

FOOL

Junior Member
I don't know whether or not any sites have done this sort of benchmarking, but I think it would be interesting. Many people have said that due to the serial nature of RDRAM, the more memory you have, the slower it will run. Has anyone actually tested this to see the degree to which this is true?
Maybe going in 64 MB increments such as 64 MB, 128 MB, 192 MB, 256 MB, 320 MB, 384 MB, 448 MB, 512 MB, etc...
Personally I like to have at least 256 MB of RAM in my system, so I would like to know how RDRAM performs in this situation.
Ideas, thoughts, places this has already been done?
Thanks.
 
Thanks for the post Ulysses, but those aren't quite what I'm looking for. I've already seen a ton of benchmarks and such comparing DDR to RDRAM, but what I'm interested in is the performance of different memory sizes when using RDRAM. Every article mentions how the serial nature of RDRAM causes memory performance to slow with larger memory amounts, and I was wondering if anyone had done any sort of benchmarks to not only validate this, but to quantify it as well.

Thanks,

FOOL
 
RDRAM just isn't worth it right now. Intel basically admitted as much over the weekend when it posted some benchmarks comparing the RDRAM 820 platform to the PC133 815e platform. the PC133 won in 9 of 11 Intel benchmarks. I don't know whether this is due to RDRAM being slow as hell or the 820 chipset being a piece of junk. Regardless, I'd go with pc133 anyday.

www.theregister.co.uk has the dirty details i think.

 
just say f*ck Rambus and forget it 🙂

and it's "Rambus" dammit, not RAMBUS! it's a company name, but an abbreviation! and there's no RAM type called Rambus, Rambus is the company who makes RDRAM. geh!
 
RDRAM can get slower as more memory chips are added and as trace lengths become longer. The problem is basically the propagation time of the signal. Because of its high frequency and its long path lengths the time it takes for data to get from memory chips to the Chipset becomes important.

Since all data has to travel through all the memory chips in a channel and each chip adds a shot delay latency is affected by the number of memory chips in a given channel. The overall amount of memory is not a problem; just the number chips in the channel. The chipset compensates for this propagation time by adding clock cycles to the latency. The effect would be similar to going from CAS 2 to CAS 3. This is automatically detected and set on boot-up.
There can also be benefits to having more chips in a given channel, so performance results will vary depending on, Software used, motherboard, number of RDRAM chips, make of RDRAM chips.

I don't know of any benchmarks that show the results of adding more RDRAM chips to a channel, but the overall effect would be to slow the system down as chips are added.
 
Okay, thanks for all the posts. I just went over the results that intel released on the two types of memory, and had a good laugh after reading toms most recent rant(?) on the subject.
Also, thanks for setting me straight on the number of chips being important rather than the amount of total memory.

- FOOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top