AMD's SOCKET AM2 TO SUPPORT DDR2 800 MHZ

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
what will intel do, i doubt they will or can have an onboard memory controller, the onlything i see is increasing the fsd to 2000MHz? if that is so will motherboards become more expensive than cpus.if any one knows enlighten me
 
probably not dybowski i think that in order to increase the fsb on intel procs it would cost more for the multipler setting on the cpu than to increase the fsb say 5x 200 would be more expensive than 4x 250 cause bigger multiplier the more transistrors you have to devote to it and higher heat output(is that how it works someone once told is that how it works i could be wrong tho)
 
FYI, The Inquirer usually get stuff right about half the time. I wouldn't put too much faith in what you read from that site.

Still, DDR2-800 would FRIGIN ROCK!

-mpjesse
 
Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.

Again, that's if... and it's a very big if. Personally I can't see DDR2-800 support for the Athlon 64/X2 line. I can see it in Opteron of FX though. Much like Intel does w/ the Extreme Edition. (i.e., P4 has 800mhz FSB while P4 EE has 1Ghz FSB).

-mpjesse
 
I would really like to see the article that states Vista will run beston DDR3. I was never a fan of DDR2, esp when it first came out with high latency compared ot similar speed DDR. But as will all things tech related the maturity of the product is now making it a worthwhile endeavour.

AMD makes choices when they want to and thats that. They obviously feel that DDR2 is now worth the change. I personaly think the timing has as much to do with the new cores and socket they are introducing as much as the performance increase. Either way, I'm in AMD's camp atm :)
 
Hoping that DDR2 will be cheap by the time AM2 arrives may be optimistic considering the time frame. Currently DDR2 is experiencing a sizable shortage estimated at between 10-20%. This is without the added demand of DDR2 for AM2 and with OEMs still not completing their transition to DDR2 on Intel platforms. In any case, even though memory manufacturers are attempting to increase production, the shortage will continue through Q1 and into Q2.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20060215171018.html

The subtitle being:
No Memory price Drops to Expect
Click to expand...
 
If AMD can run DDR2-800 in Dual Channel by either using 2 HT buses or by providing one new HT bus running @ 2GHz it would have more than 2 times the memory bandwidth Intel has and Intel would be hurting at that point.

Semper Fi Linux on! 😀
 
Nothing new

The DDR3 is still a year away from first mainstream PC implementations, although I do expect the initial support to appear late this year, in combination with volume production of these first chips from Elpida, Samsung and Infineon. The market researchers iSuppli expects DDR3 DRAM to finally replace DDR2 as the main volume product only in 2008, with a projected 55 percent market share that year. Of course, it's a long way till 2008, and there could be various potholes and roadblocks on the DDR3 highway before then. But again, the ultra-bloated Vista freight truck is coming along, in need of all the "performance and capacity fuel" it can get, so don't be surprised to see, among other things like quad-core CPUs and multi-super-duper GPUs, this DDR3 become a recommendation, then a requirement, in the upcoming Age of Vista - for Micro$oft-occupied lands only, that is: the Linux/UNIX 'free realms' can still do as they deem fit.
 
It was also mentioned here with a specific mention of Intel being the ones to support it in 2007.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.
Click to expand...
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/

AMD will be a year behind with support waiting until 2008 according to their tech outlook.

http://www.amdcompare.com/techoutlook/

You'll have to click into the Platforms section under Memory.

AMD, along with its infrastructure partners, plans to incorporate and support DDR3 technology in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
That's a far cry from M$ saying Vista will run best on DDR3. Who the hell said all that anyways?

At any rate, DDR3 is only really expected to boost clock speeds and reduce voltage. No big deal. We haven't even seen DDR2 hit the clock speed ceiling yet! For that matter, neither has plain 'ole DDR.

-mpjesse
 
I agree, I think the biggest improvement short term out of DDR3 will be the three after the DDR. AMD has proved that DDR had a lot of life left for them when Intel switched to DDR2.
 
Intel has been positioning DDR3 as a major part of performance per watt and should be hitting PC's by the end of this year scaling up to 1600MHz. During the transition DDR2 will become the budget 32bit Vista systems while DDR3 will be for Performance 64-bit Vista PC's. Many manufacturers such as Samsung, Infineon, and Elpida have already been producing DDR3, and have been refining it for for a couple of years now.
Also, I think in late 2007 or early 2008 AMD will also make the switch, meaning that DDR2 will earn the honors as the tech industries shortest lived memory.
 
I think CPU manufacturers and memory manufacturers need to try and get rid of all these multipliers, latencies, etc. Just imagine a CPU running at 2GHz w/o clock stepping and memory to run at 0-0-0-0 2GHz. The performance is orgasmic, although this seems very farfetched, it would be more performance than just increasing MHz.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Time will tell. But actually, RDRAM at the time was the fastest memory for Intel. The 600MHz sucked, but that was low end. The 1066 RDRAM was as fast as todays, it is just DDR2 was cheaper.
 
Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.
Click to expand...

Mmmm please let me doubt that.
Intel officially uses DDR2
AMD officially uses DDR
We could expect to see some really noticable difference in favor of Intel.
Everything will depend on how the new FSB/Hypertransport will be set up.

ATM i'm thinking more of a cheap marketing ploy ...
Very much like the Rambus, PC5400, PC6400 etc etc
 
Time will tell. But actually, RDRAM at the time was the fastest memory for Intel. The 600MHz sucked, but that was low end. The 1066 RDRAM was as fast as todays, it is just DDR2 was cheaper.
Click to expand...

Well, I remember where I was working support at the time, that all the P4s with RDRAM we got sucked. Our older P-IIIs were much faster even though they were 2-400 MHz slower.
 
...meaning that DDR2 will earn the honors as the tech industries shortest lived memory.
Click to expand...

damn you people forget quickly.

does nobody else remember BEDO RAM's 6 months at the top??
or that glorious year of RDRAM?

Well, I remember where I was working support at the time, that all the P4s with RDRAM we got sucked. Our older P-IIIs were much faster even though they were 2-400 MHz slower.
Click to expand...

*cough* A Tualatin at 1.4GHz could kick the arse of any P4 clocked below 2GHz, regardless of RAM standard.
(ps, Tualatin went on to become Banias, then Dothan, Merom, and soon Conroe. Whereas all P4s ended up becoming Prescott. And we all know how good they were... :roll: )


And back to the topic, one of the reasons that Athlons beat P4s, and why they haven't had to leave DDR yet, is because they effectively had 2 FSBs (HyperTransport and Memory). P4s had to go to DDR2-800+ simply because they had to jam twice as much data onto one FSB. So damn, an AM2 with DDR2-800 will absolutely kick ass. So will one with DDR2-667 though.
 
The reason everyone moaned about Intel's switch to DDR2 was that DDR2 533 was CAS5 back then, and DDR2 400 was CAS4. Now you can get DDR2-667 at CAS3, so the latency penalty goes away and it becomes a viable option. DDR2-800 CAS4 will have the same latency penalty (in nanoseconds) as DDR-400 CAS2.

AMD pushed DDR400 before it was standard too.
 
Ummm... make no mistake, if AMD does decide to go the DDR2-800 route, performance will nearly be doubled. You can expect to see AT LEAST a 50% performance increase with the ridiculous bandwidth DDR2-800 has.

-mpjesse
Click to expand...

Only in memory benchmarks. You should start reading more memery benches using AMD CPU's, DDR2-800 might give programs as much as 15% performance gain over DDR-400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom