VOGONS

Common searches


To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 160 of 181, by oeuvre

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

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.

HP Z420 Workstation Intel Xeon E5-1620, 32GB, RADEON HD7850 2GB, SSD + HD, XP/7
ws90Ts2.gif

Reply 162 of 181, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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.

Reply 169 of 181, by ODwilly

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Scali wrote:
ODwilly wrote:

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.

Yes, that's what I said: third-party DDR chipsets were available. You didn't *have* to buy an Intel chipset, so you weren't necessarily stuck to RDRAM or SDR, if you wanted a Pentium 4.

Sorry I missed that rushing through all the posts. It makes sense from a business perspective, why produce a product to compete directly with your most expensive and lucerative product that you have investments into?

Main pc: AsRock x370 Killer SLI a/c, Ryzen 5 2600, 1tb WD black nvme ssd, 24g ddr4 2400 @2933mhz, rx 480 8gb reference card, 2tb Hitachi Deskstar.
Retro PC: Soyo P4S Dragon, 3gb ddr 266, 120gb Maxtor, Geforce Fx 5950 Ultra, SB Live! 5.1

Reply 170 of 181, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

Just chiming in to ask whether you are all done now with the personal attacks? It's not much fun to see you all calling each other idiots. @Scali, I see you are heavily defending your view points, but less personal attacks would do wonders for your facts. When you read through this and you often see someone call others idiots, it's hard to not just close a thread. Keep calm.

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox

Reply 172 of 181, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote on 2019-12-19, 09:42:

Therefore the standard configuration for RDRAM was dual channel (making it 32-bit wide, like SDR and DDR), and the minimum speed was 3.2 GB/s, as I said before.

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.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 173 of 181, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
gdjacobs wrote on 2019-12-30, 02:41:
Scali wrote on 2019-12-19, 09:42:

Therefore the standard configuration for RDRAM was dual channel (making it 32-bit wide, like SDR and DDR), and the minimum speed was 3.2 GB/s, as I said before.

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.

So did IBM. One of my friends got an early P4 IBM at the time that came with RD-RAM. It ended up performing like a real dog in the latter half of its lifetime.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 174 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
gdjacobs wrote on 2019-12-30, 02:41:

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 good as what a single-channel DDR chipset would offer at 266 MHz (its highest rating at the time).
And well, a DDR spec at 200 MHz also exists. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 'bargain basement' systems sold with 200 MHz DDR as well, in which case they'd only get 1.6 GB/s.

So not really sure what your point is.
Fact remains that RAMBUS delivered superior bandwidth, at a premium.
I compared the maximum speed of RAMBUS vs DDR at the time of the first Pentium 4, which was dual-channel PC800 vs single-channel DDR266.
You want to compare minimum speed? Then yes, dual-channel PC600 vs single-channel DDR200?

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 175 of 181, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote on 2019-12-30, 11:12:

So not really sure what your point is.
Fact remains that RAMBUS delivered superior bandwidth, at a premium.

Your statement implied that 800mhz RIMMs were the slowest option. I was just clarifying that.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 176 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
gdjacobs wrote on 2019-12-30, 17:49:

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 technology, not the possible configurations that OEMs such as Dell could or would actually sell. That is not relevant.

After all, the context was that Intel chose a partnership with RAMBUS because of the technological advantage that RAMBUS would offer, in terms of bandwidth. In that context obviously you would be looking at the maximum bandwidth possible, not the minimum.
This is what I said:

When RDRAM was introduced on the P4, it had considerably higher bandwidth than DDR. RDRAM ran at 800 MHz, 16-bit, effectively de […]
Show full quote

When RDRAM was introduced on the 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 only 2.1 GB/s (dual channel didn't arrive until years later).
The update to 333 MHz still only came up to 2.7 GB/s.
Eventually DDR became faster, but that was mainly because RDRAM was abandoned anyway, and no further development happened to chipsets and RAM modules (there has only been one chipset for RAMBUS, which was the i850, the chipset that the P4 launched with, which only had a small update from PC800 to PC1066 memory support in the i850E).

Clearly it was about what the maximum performance of RAMBUS vs DDR was at the time, and why RAMBUS would be advantageous to Intel.
A 1.1 GB/s advantage in bandwidth is pretty obvious.

So I'm not sure why you felt like you had to throw in Dells with PC600. They aren't relevant to the context of my statement or the discussion at hand.
And I don't see how what I said would imply that I was talking about the slowest possible option. On the contrary.
Also, as said, if you wanted to be fair/objective, you should have also mentioned DDR200, which you didn't. Interesting...

Then again, you constantly do that. You twist and turn words, move goalposts, put words in my mouth etc.
I mean, earlier you made the claim that I would have said that EPIC was 'somehow better'.
I never said any of that. If you read back I merely said that it was 'more innovative', and it is pretty obvious why: It does something entirely different from x86 or even RISC CPUs. Something that was new at the time. Which I would say is the definition of innovative.
Not all innovations turn out to be 'good'/'better' for whatever definitions of 'good' or 'better', so trying to rephrase what I said as 'somehow better' is a strawman.

And now this PC600 strawman... why?
Actually, I don't care why, I would just like you to stop trolling like this.

The problem is that you are trying to frame me as some kind of Intel fanboy, which I'm not.
In fact, trying to use EPIC for that is pretty stupid, since EPIC was mostly designed by HP, not by Intel.
So since you can't really give Intel credits for the ideas behind the EPIC architecture, being 'innovative' would also not apply to Intel, but rather to HP.
Since I wasn't even trying to give credit to Intel in the first place, I didn't think it was even relevant to go there. But well, when you make remarks like 'somehow better', now suddenly I have to add yet more explanation for things I never wanted to discuss in the first place.
That's just very annoying to say the least.

Last edited by Scali on 2019-12-30, 18:22. Edited 1 time in total.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 178 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
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.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/