What's new

which RAM? (1 Viewer)

Gabriel_Lam

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,402
RDRAM is the fastest in an absolute sense, but it's very difficult to justify the extra cost. The difference in speed is extremely close now, with the faster DDR speeds, and the price difference is still around 50%.
 

DeepakJR

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
255
Real Name
Deepak
DDR is the best. RDRAM does run faster than DDR, but benchmarks still prove DDR beats RD both in performance and price. DDR is the way to go!

l8rz,
Deepak JR.
 

Jeff D.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 10, 1999
Messages
521
Real Name
Jeff
DDR is the best. RDRAM does run faster than DDR, but benchmarks still prove DDR beats RD both in performance and price. DDR is the way to go!
This blanket statement is inaccurate.
Bar none, RDRAM is the better choice for an Intel P4 system. New boards based on the Intel i850e chipset are proving to be very reliable and excellent performers.
Saying DDR beats RDRAM is misleading. For DDR to beat RDRAM, you need to use DDR400. For more details, this article at Tom's Hardware will fill you in. If you take a close look at the results, the DDR400 solution does beat RDRAM (PC1066), but only very marginally, and in some cases RDRAM comes out on top.
Anything less than DDR400, and RDRAM will win hands-down. Another article at Tom's Hardware gives you an idea how DDR333 compares to RDRAM - the result is RDRAM on top.
Of course, price is an issue to consider. Yes, RDRAM is more expensive. This may change in the near future. Right now there are quite a few boards coming out that are based on the RDRAM solution (from Intel). Also, SiS has announced a chipset for RDRAM, which should create more interest.
Generally, you really can't beat the speed and reliability that the RDRAM/P4 solution offers. If you choose to go DDR, you need to be more careful about which mobo/chipset you choose, as there are some choices which have proved to be less than stable.
My vote: if money is not a huge concern, go for RDRAM. :)
/Jeff
 

Gabriel_Lam

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,402
If you find a good enough deal, by all means, go RDRAM. Seriously though, the difference in real world terms is very slight. I'm on loads of RDRAM right now (1.5GB of PC800 ECC RDRAM on P4 Xeon 2.4Ghz), but from the pure cost/performance standpoint, it's a bit difficult to justify.
 

Steve_Ch

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
978
>>Of course, price is an issue to consider. Yes, RDRAM is more expensive. This may change in the near future. Right now there are quite a few boards coming out that are based on the RDRAM solution (from Intel). Also, SiS has announced a chipset for RDRAM, which should create more interest.
 

John_Berger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
2,489
Sorry, but the whole argument is moot, particularly if this is for a home environment. Unless you're going to be running very memory-intensive applications like 3D CAD/CAM or computer animation/rendering, the speed of memory is negligible and should not even enter into the picture.
I worked at a major international engineering company (one that happens to be prominent in recent "corporate scandal" news) that is unbelievably heavy in 3D metalurgical and plastic component design and manufacturing, and they ran memory tests as well. The differences were ridiculously unimportant. I was not a part of these tests since I am a UNIX/Solaris admin, but I was made aware of the results. The extra cost of RDRAM versus DDR RAM could not come close to being justified, and this is in an environment that needs as much speed as possible.
For home use, comparing DDR RAM and RDRAM is like comparing two cars that are virtually identical, except one can go up to 180 miles/hour whereas the other can go 190 miles/hour an hour and costs $2000 more. No matter which one you buy, the speed limit on the roads in still 55/65! :)
Just make sure that you have more than enough memory for your system. If you will be running NT/2000/XP, I recommend 256 MB+. Beyond that you WILL suffer from diminishing returns. Do not go above 256 MB with Win 9x/ME as it becomes even more unstable than it inherently is. Of course, if you're looking at a system that can do DDR RAM, I sure as hell hope that you're not even considering 9x/ME! :) :) :)
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
I purchased a Dell 8200 Dimension P4 2.0 GHz and went with 128MB of RDRAM, figuring I could get extra memory cheaper elsewhere. I am looking at 512MB for $185 (bringing me to a total of 640MB). It looks as though I could also get 1GB for around $400 (bringing me to 1.128 GB). Is the extra 512 MB worth the money? I do not run CAD programs or anything that high-end, but I want to be sure my system is workable for at least 3-4 years.
 

John_Berger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
2,489
**whistling**
I can just about guarantee you that I use my system more heavily on processor and memory usage than most people, and my system has yet to break the "300 MB of used RAM" barrier. If you just use your PC for games and Internet usage, you have no reason to go above 512 MB. Anything else will be a waste, unless you decide that you want a huge RAM disk of some kind.
 

Andre F

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
1,486
I have 512mb of RDRAM in my new machine. It will cost a bit to upgrade when I need to but maybe by then the price will come down a bit...
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
John,

That's good to know. When XP first came out they said that 256 MB was really the minimum you wanted to have, so I figured 512 (or 640) should give me a cushion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,847
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top