DDR v DDR2

Post by **Kills On Site** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:44 am

I was wondering for all that understand the RAM shit, or got some links that explain it. Is the high latencies a fair trade off for the higher amount of pins and faster speed or is the latency a bitch for DDR2? I know that you don't have a choice, gotta put in your board what will fit, but I am hoping someone can shed a bit of light on it.

Post by **DiscoDave** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:16 pm

Well currently the difference between DDR1 and DDR2 is quite small. But where it will gain is overclockability due to lower voltages etc etc. It will no doubt be beneficial to future applications where programmers can use the extra bandwidth well. It hasn't been used to its full potential yet, like PCI express.

Hope this helps

David

Post by **AmIdYfReAk** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:04 pm

well, discodave skimmed over the facts but yea, both LOOK amazing on paper but the issue is there realworld performance isent quite up to snuff..

the higher latency's in DD2 is simply because its two DDr moduels ( Reletivly speaking.. ) so, DDR rated at CAS 2.5 would be DD2 rated at CAS 5.. simply put.

What system are you going to be putting DDR2 into? are you waiting for aMD to release it? or INTEL?

Post by **Kills On Site** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:06 pm

I was just curious, most likely end of this year and it will most likely hae DDR2, I am hoping for a 64-bit Intel as this machine will not be a hardcore gamer, more for work and office apps. Like I said prolly end of the year, but I was just curious as to why it has the high latencies

So the latencies are not that horrible in respect to DDR2?

Post by **Kills On Site** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:11 pm

Is there a reason that DDR2 533 is more available and cheaper then DDR2 400?

Would there be any performance difference putting DDR2 533 in a machine with a proc that has an 800MHz FSB?

Also is this Corsair 2x512MB RAM a good buy?

Post by **bag0shite** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:20 pm

Just go AMD. Intel are in a spin right now. Their only saving grace is the Pentium M. AMD has them licked on 64-bit chips (which use plain old DDR) and if Anandtech's preview is anything to go by Intel's dual-core offering is little more than 2 P4s stuck together, so another point for AMD on the technology front :icon31:

Post by **Kills On Site** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:22 pm

Well thanks for the advice on something I did not ask for advice on....

BTW I do believe the dual core procs are mostly the 64-bit versions, so they can't be just plain P4s

Post by **Tormentius** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:41 pm

Kills On Site wrote:Well thanks for the advice on something I did not ask for advice on....

BTW I do believe the dual core procs are mostly the 64-bit versions, so they can't be just plain P4s

You're quite right and Intel is hardly in "a spin" since their new Xeons are x64 and dual core.