The beginning of the end for DDR memory?

[Hanpan]

I do not have the link off hand but I wanted to mention that currently pc1066 RDRAM is expected to cost 2X as much as pc800. Something to keep in mind.

 

[PanJack]

"Market forces" responsible for increase in DRAM prices? No so.

The price rise appears to be the result of collusion amongst memory
producers. The activity that has led to the price rise is illegal in the US.

From EETimes (http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20020130S0028):

"Major DRAM manufacturers are putting their heads together in an effort to
coordinate production capacity. . . .Among the participants are Samsung
Electronics, Micron and Infineon Technologies. . ."There are getting to be
fewer and fewer suppliers so we have to work more closely," he said. "There is
a lot of contact with these guys."

"Suppliers are comparing notes about production quantities across different
product lines, capacity plans and the expected supply of Intel's Pentium 4
chip in an effort to balance supply with demand. "We are not talking pricing
because that is illegal, but we are talking about how to cooperate ? how to
ensure that the supply side does not get crazy," he said.

(NOTE: OPEC generally doesn't talk pricing either: this sounds like pure collusion to me.)

"After nearly a year of dismal memory chip pricing, DRAMs have shot up by more
than 250 percent from their November low. . ."

PanJack

 

[AGodspeed]

<< I do not have the link off hand but I wanted to mention that currently pc1066 RDRAM is expected to cost 2X as much as pc800. Something to keep in mind. >>



I believe you're referring to this web site:

Furthermore, 533 MHz [PC1066] RDRAM modules are expected to be twice the price of conventional PC800 [400MHz] modules.

To tell you the truth, the only way Rambus will be able to compete with DDR DRAM is to come up with a new design model (Yellowstone maybe?).

 

[KenAF]

<< I do not have the link off hand but I wanted to mention that currently pc1066 RDRAM is expected to cost 2X as much as pc800. Something to keep in mind. >>

I don't know where Tom got his info, but...

Fortunately, PC1066 chips are just relabeled PC800 chips. Virtually all available PC800 RDRAM will run fine at PC1066, according to several sites that have tested. According to the site I just linked, most PC800 RDRAM will also run fine at PC1200 as well.

 

[KenAF]

Repost from the first half of this thread, since it's so darn long...

Ohh my!

On an old P4 1.5GHz, moving up from PC800 RDRAM to PC1200 RDRAM increases performance in the Sysmark Office benchmark by 16.8%.

On an old P4 2.0GHz, moving up from PC800 RDRAM to PC1200 RDRAM increases performance in the Sysmark Office benchmark by 17.4%.

They seem to think that the differences between PC800 and PC1200 will be even greater at higher P4 frequencies. Also of note...it seems that most of the PC800 (400MHz) RDRAM they tested was capable of running at PC1200 (600MHz).

The Sysmark office benchmark isn't bandwidth limited, is it? Thus the improvement must be the result of PC1200's dramatically improved latency? Regardless, it looks like Intel may no longer be such a mediocre performer in office and productivity applications after it gets faster RDRAM in April.

 

[Athlon4all]

<< I don't know where Tom got his info, but... >>

I must say that considering Tom's Anti-Rambus Anti-Intel Bias, I am not sure I can take his comment there as true because unless PC1066 is having some terrible yields (and several sources don't seem to indicate that), then there'sno reason PC1066 would cost 2x PC800, especially considering some PC800 RIMM's have been tested successfully running at PC1066 speed. Only time will tell I suppose.

<< most PC800 RDRAM will also run fine at PC1200 as well. >>

I'm not too sure about that one.

 

[Degenerate]

<< << most PC800 RDRAM will also run fine at PC1200 as well. >> >>



seems like pushing it to me.