• 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.

Sharky and Intel? Read this quote!

S

Scope

Golden Member
Sharky's
"Beyond Brookdale and the i850 chipset, we do not know what form of memory Intel will use for their high-end Pentium 4 chipset. Dual RDRAM channels will provide more bandwidth than DDR for quite a while, but if DDR speed moves up fast enough, we could see RDRAM all but disappear from the consumer computer main-memory market after the i850 chipset, all in spite of RDRAM's awesome potential.

What is he talking about, must be hard to walk around with the fat sack of cash Intel gives him.
Scope!

 


<< (rambus now has)...support for the first DRAM capable of transferring data at speeds greater than 1GHz. Rambus' 1066MHz RDRAM® provides a 33% increase in performance using current RDRAM technology, the highest performance DRAM to date. The 1066MHz RDRAM is a simple bin split of the industry standard 800MHz RDRAM device currently available from leading RDRAM manufacturers. The 1066MHz RDRAM is initially targeted for consumer, graphics and communications applications, providing 2.1 GB/s of bandwidth from a single device on a Rambus® Channel. >>



Now all we need is a 1Ghz FSB! 🙂
 
After I posted the message I realized it was a major troll. I should let things be, I just have a lot of built up angst with all my school stuff right now. Hey Flokster good to see your as steady as a rock.
Scope!
 
With RAMBUS's latency, I don't know if any amount of bandwidth advantage could keep it in league with DDR.
 
OneEng: that depends entirely on application and on the actual implementation. Although we share a similar opinion on Direct RDRAM, I still think it has specific applications and implementations where it has potential over currently available memory technologies.
 


<< With RAMBUS's latency, I don't know if any amount of bandwidth advantage could keep it in league with DDR. >>



There are solutions that would lower the latency, like putting the memory interface on-chip. And what about a solution that would offer 12.6-16GB's of transfer rate? I think RB is in the future, for high end computing.



<< RDRAM does have potential. But we will never see that potential. >>



Well, not if we do not want to accept the fact that there will be some awesome implementations of RB in the future. Most RB antagonists will not understand this even if you try to explain it to them very slowly (do not take this personally, i just had to answer sooo many posts regarding this issue).



<< OneEng: that depends entirely on application and on the actual implementation. Although we share a similar opinion on Direct RDRAM, I still think it has specific applications and implementations where it has potential over currently available memory technologies. >>



Well said PM. i totally agree, RB is not for everyone, but for applications such as the ones one of my customers are using, where maximum bandwidth is needed.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top