An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
I know we don't know much about DDR2 or even DDR3, but Graphics Card companies skipped DDR2 for a reason & only tested it on 1 of their cards, which proved no performance improvment. Now both ATI & NVIDIA is using DDR3 or should I say GDDR3 where the \"G\" means Graphics I think?
As stated in a previous post I feel the computer industry should skip DDR2 & go right onto the better DDR3.
I pick DDR3. Runs cooler, faster & has better latencies than both DDR1 & DDR2.
Now why would you invest in a DDR2 system? First off, DDR1 right now is better bang for your buck, DDR2 is way over priced & there Latencies are no good. Until we start seeing DDR2 @ 667 speeds with Ultra Low Latencies there is no use for it right now.
Intel is struggling to sell DDR2 motherboards. The release of this DDR2 in 2004 & 2005 is the biggest industry mistake right now and Intel is feeling the pressure.
And why do you think AMD has not adopted DDR2 right now? Because it would degrade performance & why should they when there is rumor that DDR3 @ 1066Mbps coming out in early 2006 @ 1.5 volts & Ultra Low Latencies. I still think AMD will go the DDR2 route, but you never know.
In my opinion, Intel should of waited, but they did not, because there CPU?s & chipset?s do benefit with DDR2 more than DDR1 providing that the DDR2 is faster than 667MHz w/ low latencies.
Slow DDR-II adoption causing ?four significant chip manufacturers could be lost, to mergers or worse, by the end of the year.? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21333
maybe the fact that INTEL has been desperate to improve their product image, that has caused them to take on risky advancements.
for every other power hungry dude out there, they must have the newest technological investments for their PC. wether DDRII is successful or even beneficial makes no difference to Joe Dirt; simply because he chooses to believe in only theory and not logical or idealistic uses.
so ideally, this seems to be another one INTEL's usual marketing tricks to fool more optimistic consumers to follow the bandwagon. some of those traditional strategies are practiced such as: \"Pentium 4 and it's HYPER threading will allow you to surf the internet much faster\". i love how they used emphasis on the MMX technology for the PIIs back in the day; they can come up with new instructions frequently and just give them all sorts of new names that SOUNDS flashy. all Joe Dirt knows is only what's new and not what it does, \"I GOTTA GET THIS!\", \"what does it do?\", \"i dont know but doesnt it look WAY COOL!?\".
chances are INTEL knew what they were getting into when advancing to DDRII. even if it is slow, INTEL knows once people buy the board for DDRII and realise what a bad move they made, they'll be stuck with a P4 board. now that they spent all that money on their new flashy DDRII board they'll be forced to buy or upgrade with more P4s. unless money is not an object. but who cares, because Joe couldnt recognize the difference anyway. \"duuuude, you're getting a P4\"
Last edited by Jack whoKnows? on Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total
ddr 2 is pointless any ways . timings are just to slow.
PCGEEK this is what I've been trying to explain to people & they don't seem to understand.
This is the reason why AMD did not design a Integrated DDR2 Memory Controller, too slow right now.
DDR is faster than DDR2 right now.
DDR has been mastered, where as DDR 2 is new & needs work. By then DDR3 would probably be super fast & with that high speed would not really need low timings. IMO ;)
friend of mine has a 3.6 GHz 660 P4 in a dell with ddr 2 533. His benchmarked speeds are 4,800 MB/s read. mine are 7,890 MB/s i run ddr 510 2.5 4 3 6 timings he has ddr 533 4 4 4 12 timings. get the picture.
keep in mind pc wizard figures it on math on what its bandwidth shuld be. everest dose a true memory benchmark.
friend of mine has a 3.6 GHz 660 P4 in a dell with ddr 2 533. His benchmarked speeds are 4,800 MB/s read. mine are 7,890 MB/s i run ddr 510 2.5 4 3 6 timings he has ddr 533 4 4 4 12 timings. get the picture.
keep in mind pc wizard figures it on math on what its bandwidth shuld be. everest dose a true memory benchmark.
SLOW slow slow slow slow
Yes, right now DDR is better & faster than DDR2. Heck it's even cheaper for DDR.
When DDR 2 has better timings then AMD may move to it, of even DDR 3 :yes: