VOGONS

Common searches


Search results

Display options

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
Dominus wrote on 2019-12-30, 18:21: Please use better phrases than labeling something that someone did as stupid. You find it annoying, than keep it at "annoying". Let's discuss this in private. 'Annoying' and 'stupid' are not the same thing.

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
Your statement implied that 800mhz RIMMs were the slowest option. I was just clarifying that. Well, I would say that in the context of my post, it would be obvious that I meant that the oldest/slowest *chipset* for RAMBUS support allowed for 3.2 GB/s with the PC800 RIMMs. I was talking about the …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
Dell sold craploads of 850 chipset systems with dual channel 600mhz RIMMS. Too many customers couldn't stomach the price for faster modules, I guess. Either that, or Dell just figured that they'd sell more if they had a 'bargain' model. Even so, at PC600, you sill get 2.1 GB/s, which is still as …

Re: What do you drive?

in Milliways
I just bought a BMW 330e to replace my BMW 325i Coupe. Going to pick it up tomorrow. Yay hybrid eco-treehugging etc! Actually, it's just a damn smooth and fast drive train 😀

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
the P3 RDRAM just helped people to see it as unnecessarily expensive for no benefit, and I don't think it generated much of a demand That's not the point, is it? Even if a strategy failed, it was still a strategy. I also don't think consumers should be involved. RDRAM for P3 was a high-end solution …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
To add in to the discussion rambus vs ddr, I just wanted to add in that my SiS 645 based Soyo 478 motherboard was released Q4 of 2001and utilized dual channel ddr266/333mhz. It was also under half the cost of a family friends RAMBUS Dell from a bit earlier than that as well as being much faster. …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
the rdram saga is weirder when you consider the early use on P3, Not really. As I said, Intel needed RDRAM for the bandwidth on Pentium 4. So it was important for Intel to get RDRAM standardized and in as many products as possible, to get demand up, price down, and make it into a commodity (there …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
You're wrong. 3.2Gb/s is mentioned for 32-bit i.e. two modules in dual channel. Exactly, that's what I said. Dual channel was the default configuration for RDRAM on Pentium 4. There were no single channel chipsets. Dual channel DDR266 equals 4.2 Gb/s, practically the same bandwidht provided by …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
Oh.. So Rambus made the deal with themselves? RAMBUS had very strict conditions for RAMBUS usage. Intel needed RAMBUS as it was the only memory technology to deliver the required bandwidth. As I say: it could have been very different if there had not been DDR as a low-cost alternative, and RAMBUS …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
appiah4 wrote: Yet another case of Intel choosing to fuck over a market they had monopoly on for personal gain and felt they could dictate whatever costs they whimsically willed onto the customers. But then, who would be surprised. RAMBUS, not Intel.

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
Dual channel DDR could be better. Actually, no. When RDRAM was introduced onthe P4, it had considerably higher bandwidth than DDR. RDRAM ran at 800 MHz, 16-bit, effectively delivering 3.2 GB/s in the dual channel setup of a P4. DDR single channel (32-bit) was originally 266 MHz, which delivered …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
It took forever for Intel to release a DDR chipset, with high-latency and expensive RDRAM and slow SDRAM as the only options. Yes, RDRAM meant that Intel had to have an exclusive high-end deal, and they couldn't offer DDR until that deal ran out. The SDRAM chipsets actually had dormant DDR support, …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

in Milliways
To me, AMD's modular design of Zen2 is a choice resulting from technological and economical constraints of the time. Similarly to placing L2 cache next to the cpu, running at half the speed, and combining it all in a slot package in the mid-late 90s. I don't necessarily see it as some paradigm …

Page 1 of 226