G
Guest
Guest
I'm aware that this forum has seen many arguments for and against RDRAM, for and against DDR SDRAM, and will likely see more to come. In all of the heated arguments about which type of memory performs better, I wonder if such a seemingly small, yet important point might be overlooked: that of the total memory the user can afford.
Recently, I've seen someone asking if 512MB of non-DDR memory would be better than 256MB of DDR. Forget the performance differential! Forget the memory types! Forget it all! 512MB of *any* RAM is gonna be better than 256MB of *any* other RAM. Why? Because when you're out of memory, your system starts to "swap," that is, using hard drive as if it were virtual memory.
And then... lo and behold! The once-proud owner of the "wow-how-fast" memory will be reduced to the crawling speed of his hard drive (about 100 times slower than the slowest RAM), while the user of the "lack-luster" memory is gonna proceed apace and smile innocently, while running the very same memory intensive application.
So, what does that mean for the eternal question: What is gonna be the memory of the future? Well, the one that the user can afford most for the same buck, of course! That is why we see the DDR prices coming so close to the non-DDR prices (so that no one would want to compare 256MB of one against 512MB of the other). And that is why RDRAM's only chance to succeed is to lower its cost for the average user. Or else, to pray with the Intel's "RDRAM-only support mantra."
But then, once the first SDRAM chipset for Pentium 4 is released, guess what memory is gonna be the most popular with the Intel's flagship CPU? Well, if it means choosing between 512MB of SDRAM and 128MB of RDRAM, it's gonna be a no-brainer. RDRAM might be several times faster, but how fast is your hard drive?
Leo
Recently, I've seen someone asking if 512MB of non-DDR memory would be better than 256MB of DDR. Forget the performance differential! Forget the memory types! Forget it all! 512MB of *any* RAM is gonna be better than 256MB of *any* other RAM. Why? Because when you're out of memory, your system starts to "swap," that is, using hard drive as if it were virtual memory.
And then... lo and behold! The once-proud owner of the "wow-how-fast" memory will be reduced to the crawling speed of his hard drive (about 100 times slower than the slowest RAM), while the user of the "lack-luster" memory is gonna proceed apace and smile innocently, while running the very same memory intensive application.
So, what does that mean for the eternal question: What is gonna be the memory of the future? Well, the one that the user can afford most for the same buck, of course! That is why we see the DDR prices coming so close to the non-DDR prices (so that no one would want to compare 256MB of one against 512MB of the other). And that is why RDRAM's only chance to succeed is to lower its cost for the average user. Or else, to pray with the Intel's "RDRAM-only support mantra."
But then, once the first SDRAM chipset for Pentium 4 is released, guess what memory is gonna be the most popular with the Intel's flagship CPU? Well, if it means choosing between 512MB of SDRAM and 128MB of RDRAM, it's gonna be a no-brainer. RDRAM might be several times faster, but how fast is your hard drive?
Leo