what do you guys think the future of RDRAM??

[babah]

Do you think it will be in good in the present and future, cuz i'm planning build a system based on RDRAM.
so....what you guys think good or not??

Thanks

 

[Chu]

RDram is dead on the x86 desktop. It still has plenty of uses in other areas of the industry, but they screwed up the consumer/business PC market badly.

-Chu

 

[Chu]

Err . . slight revision. Not dead, but dying. 6 months from now, RDram based motherboard solutions, if they still exist at all (Dual channel DDR-400 systems will be out by then), will be priced at a very high premium. Yes, I know DDR 400 will still be ridicluously expensive, but the price of PC1066 will be a hard ceiling for them, considering the market they are targeting.

-Chu

 

[jbond04]

I think the future of RDRAM largely depends on how well SiS does with their 658 chipset. If the performance is high enough, then their will always be a segment of the enthusiast market that will buy RDRAM. And that also means that some smaller vendors (Alienware, VoodooPC, Falcon NW, etc.) will sell systems based on RDRAM as well.

However, Intel's lack of RDRAM support is a rather serious blow to Rambus. I find it unfortunate, since RDRAM can easily scale in speed with the P4, but consumers have spoken, and they prefer lower prices. Check my rig to see what I prefer (if you can't already tell ).

 

[cmdrdredd]

AMD's new hammer should offer great performance for a memory controller embedded in the CPU.

I do feel like DDR400 and other VIA/SIS/Intel/Nvidia memory controllers will offer superior performance however. DDr is catching RDRAM in the bandwidth department and I see that in he future DDr could outperform RDRAM given the proper technology.

 

[CrazySaint]

Plus there's the fact that because of RAMBUS' questionable practices in the industry, they are being investigated by the FTC.

 

[RanDum72]

It has a future, at least for the Intel platform. Its future will be even better if prices go down.

 

[Adul]

what future?

 

[Ilmater]

Many people have complained about RDRAM, mainly based on its price. Now, as everyone knows, there is a good degree of parity between the prices of DDR400 and RDRAM 800. Right now, a stick of each at 256MB will run you about $2 more for the RDRAM. However, with the advent of 1066, RDRAM again soared above DDR SDRAM. So, the question is, is it worth the money? Is there a big performance difference? The answer isn't just no, it's actually hell no. Not only is RDRAM 1066 more expensive, but if you look at this article over at Tom's Hardware Guide, you'll see that DDR400 is now the speed king. But let's be realistic, unless you're an overclocker and need to have the fastest benchmarks in the world, you'll notice very little difference in performance. At least that article will give you a sense of security that you won't be way behind RDRAM 1066. I would also suggest that you take a look at this article and this article. In the first one, THG talks about the fact that RDRAM is the only memory able to take the P4 to the levels it's capable of going. But, in the second, DDR400 takes the performace crown from RDRAM 800. It's not PC1066, but the most important thing he says - indeed the thing that is most important to this post - is the fact that it's more about the chipset and its memory controller. I'm sorry for all the THG links, but they're the only articles I've read on this subject.

 

[Chu]

heh, Ilmater makes a point that people often forget.

That RDram might get you a 5% proformance premium at a cost of $100 extra for 512 megs.

For that same $100, you could get a MUCH faster CPU and stick with PC800 RDram or just go ahead with DDR.

-Chu