VOGONS

Search

Common searches

Search results for AMD

Display options

Display options

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 07:09

in Milliways
Yes, RDRAM meant that Intel had to have an exclusive high-end deal, and they couldn't offer DDR until that deal ran out. 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 …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 08:19

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.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 08:35

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.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 09:32

in Milliways
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. Oh.. So Rambus made the deal with themselves? Wait, what? Intel …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 09:42

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.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 10:24

RDRAM ran at 800 MHz, 16-bit, effectively delivering 3.2 GB/s. You're wrong. 3.2Gb/s is mentioned for 32-bit i.e. two modules in dual channel or one 32-bit module. DDR dual channel was originally 266 MHz, which delivered only 2.1 GB/s. Dual channel DDR266 equals 4.2 Gb/s, practically the same …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 10:27

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.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 22:04

It's easy to say now that RDRAM was a mistake. But fact of the matter is that it had excellent performance, better than DDR (which explains why it was also used by Sony for the PlayStation 2 for example). The main issue was cost. [...] I think technically RDRAM was a good choice at the time, for …

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 23:04

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.

Posted on 2019-12-19, 23:29

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.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 00:46

Filename F0E2913E-FC92-493F-9C2A-5CE865692EF2.jpeg File size 28.7 KiB Views 2017 views Filename E2662140-59B4-41BC-8206-32DCD4422AD3.jpeg File size 82.67 KiB Views 2017 views Filename 61AD245C-4DEB-4EB5-8184-0A4D7D14CAFF.jpeg File size 109.72 KiB Views 2017 views

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 02:05

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.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 09:09

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.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 09:15

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.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 09:26

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.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 17:25

in Milliways
oeuvre wrote: I'm gonna make my own processor, oeuvreCPU It will support oeuvreclocking and be backwards compatible with MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, 9x, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, etc. Kickstarter when?

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Posted on 2019-12-20, 17:53

oeuvre wrote: I'm gonna make my own processor, oeuvreCPU It will support oeuvreclocking and be backwards compatible with MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, 9x, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, etc. I would be oeuvre the moon. Better support powerpC mac OS too, otherwise why bother.

Page 329 of 1678

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Close window
Close window