freecableguy
Gawd
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Messages
- 797
I look around and I notice that not too many people have made the switch to DDR2? Why? Curious on this one...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Why not more DDR2 users?
- Thread starter freecableguy
- Start date
As DDR2 is a high-bandwidth, high-latency technology, much like Rambus, it needs a bit more raw speed to get the same overall performance as DDR... So basically you need DDR2 at 533 MHz to compete with DDR at 400 MHz.
But despite this 'slow start', DDR2 will eventually take over, since it will easily scale past 700 MHz, while DDR is getting a bit long in the tooth.
So I suppose most people are just using DDR until DDR2 will actually give a big enough improvement to bother making the switch.
But despite this 'slow start', DDR2 will eventually take over, since it will easily scale past 700 MHz, while DDR is getting a bit long in the tooth.
So I suppose most people are just using DDR until DDR2 will actually give a big enough improvement to bother making the switch.
I like my Corsair XMS Pro C4 DDR675 PC5400 memory. It works well and although it costs a fortune I have no complaints. It really hasn't come down that much. Although some other brands have. Although I've never really overclocked it that much, the ram has done everything I've wanted flawlessly.
I've been thinking about getting some more. But as stated its somewhat costly to do so.
I've been thinking about getting some more. But as stated its somewhat costly to do so.
Cost is the main reason here.. I got PC3500 high end RAM on my old old 845 PE board for overclocking.. Today that same ram will still work in a brand new AMD system. Just change Board/Processor. Same video card, PS, everything.
Most DDR2's are Intel 915/925 options, which require a new PCI-E Video card (some don't but most do), and powersupply (some don't but all work better with it changed.. Intel 915PBL board shows CPU temps in the 60,000 degree level with ATX PS). and then there is the DDR2 memory, which as mentioned before, is bang for buck, and Mhz for Mhz weaker than DDR by no small margin.
Price is high because no one is buying.. No one is buying because the price is high. etc..
Most DDR2's are Intel 915/925 options, which require a new PCI-E Video card (some don't but most do), and powersupply (some don't but all work better with it changed.. Intel 915PBL board shows CPU temps in the 60,000 degree level with ATX PS). and then there is the DDR2 memory, which as mentioned before, is bang for buck, and Mhz for Mhz weaker than DDR by no small margin.
Price is high because no one is buying.. No one is buying because the price is high. etc..
The bandwith is doing me just fine and as for cost cheap ddr2 costs a heck of a lot less than high performance ddr at a small performance hit.
My big beef with ddr2 is why they didn't just release ddr2-800 right off the bat if most ddr2-533 can run at close to that speed anyway. It woulda sold a heck of a lot better too. I mean imagine trying to decide ddr400 vs. ddr2-800 instead of ddr400 vs. ddr2-533. Which one sounds better ddr400 or ddr2-800? Not that the extra bandwith would really do you much good, but imagine what it would have been like to be able to pick up a gig of memory that you knew would stay current for two or three years (*cough* ddr400 *cough*).
I think people would be more than happy to pay a premium for something they knew they weren't going to have to replace six months from now (damn 915/925 chipsets).
My big beef with ddr2 is why they didn't just release ddr2-800 right off the bat if most ddr2-533 can run at close to that speed anyway. It woulda sold a heck of a lot better too. I mean imagine trying to decide ddr400 vs. ddr2-800 instead of ddr400 vs. ddr2-533. Which one sounds better ddr400 or ddr2-800? Not that the extra bandwith would really do you much good, but imagine what it would have been like to be able to pick up a gig of memory that you knew would stay current for two or three years (*cough* ddr400 *cough*).
I think people would be more than happy to pay a premium for something they knew they weren't going to have to replace six months from now (damn 915/925 chipsets).
Being a duallie whore with a penchant for 64-bit machines, I'd go with DDR2 is useless because Opterons don't support it yet. 
I think it's really just a matter of cost and the lack of Intel chips with >800fsb.
With the exception of the "exotic" P4EE, top end Intel chips run at 800fsb. At stock clocks dual channel PC3200 matches up nicely with an 800fsb. Then in the "budget" segment DDR is cheaper than DDR2, so we get single channel DDR setups. The benefit of DDR2 is marginal until either Intel raises bus speeds or it hits 800MHz at a cost difference vs. PC3200 that is less than the cost of dual channel mainboard circuitry. Even then, we'll see lots of DDR systems until the price per MB of DDR2 approaches parity with DDR. If you'll recall, the same thing happened with SDRAM.
I think it's really just a matter of cost and the lack of Intel chips with >800fsb.
With the exception of the "exotic" P4EE, top end Intel chips run at 800fsb. At stock clocks dual channel PC3200 matches up nicely with an 800fsb. Then in the "budget" segment DDR is cheaper than DDR2, so we get single channel DDR setups. The benefit of DDR2 is marginal until either Intel raises bus speeds or it hits 800MHz at a cost difference vs. PC3200 that is less than the cost of dual channel mainboard circuitry. Even then, we'll see lots of DDR systems until the price per MB of DDR2 approaches parity with DDR. If you'll recall, the same thing happened with SDRAM.