.:HSTuners::

04-20-2003, 01:39 AM

just cause its rdram its not the end of the world.

mhz for mhz rdram kicks the pants off ddr. the benefit you see with ddr is it will overclock much higher than rdram and can be installed in single dimm increments.

rdram isn't quite dead but its definately on its way out. however that doesn't mean performance is anywhere near bad. its actually quite good still. i continue to see rdram setups at 180fsb pushing 3500mb/s or higher memory bandwidth while ddr boards (single channel) even at 200fsb are barely getting 3200mb/s. now dual ddr is a whole different story. its the best of both worlds.. the configuration is like rambus but you use ddr not rdram and you get the high overclockability with the huge bandwidth. highest i've seen was 5800mb/s on the new Gigabyte Intel Canterwood board running 240fsb on an engineering sample p4.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

04-20-2003, 01:39 AM	#16
Maxvla Posts: n/a	just cause its rdram its not the end of the world. mhz for mhz rdram kicks the pants off ddr. the benefit you see with ddr is it will overclock much higher than rdram and can be installed in single dimm increments. rdram isn't quite dead but its definately on its way out. however that doesn't mean performance is anywhere near bad. its actually quite good still. i continue to see rdram setups at 180fsb pushing 3500mb/s or higher memory bandwidth while ddr boards (single channel) even at 200fsb are barely getting 3200mb/s. now dual ddr is a whole different story. its the best of both worlds.. the configuration is like rambus but you use ddr not rdram and you get the high overclockability with the huge bandwidth. highest i've seen was 5800mb/s on the new Gigabyte Intel Canterwood board running 240fsb on an engineering sample p4.