Intel may have known DDR2 was a short-term technology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
Yousuf Khan said:
It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
decided to foist it on the world anyways.

CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197

It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.
Click to expand...

Another silly anti-Intel post. This one the silliest of all. DDR2 isn't
going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10% greater than that of
DDR uno right now. It's already scaling to 800 MHz and could scale to 1
GHz. I seriously doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. But hey, I'm sure
gundeep is one deep dud....dooo
 
Judd said:
DDR2 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10%
greater than that of DDR uno right now.
Click to expand...

Hold on just a minute! Is your calculator equipped with a Pentium CPU?
Because it looks like you've been bitten by the FDIV bug all over again.

Unbuffered, unregistered, SDRAM DIMMs
512-MB DDR-400 = US$35
512-MB DDR2-533 = US$60

That's +71% in my book, not +10%...
 
Judd said:
Another silly anti-Intel post. This one the silliest of all. DDR2 isn't
going anywhere anytime soon. Prices are only 5%-10% greater than that of
DDR uno right now. It's already scaling to 800 MHz and could scale to 1
GHz. I seriously doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. But hey, I'm sure
gundeep is one deep dud....dooo
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you don't mind paying extra for a technology that
may not even get cheaper because it may not have much production life
left in it; and it may get phased out long before you're ready to
switch your processor out, not allowing you to salvage any of your
investment in it? If that's the case, then obviously you're a man of
great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,
because if Intel itself doesn't believe in DDR2, then there's not much
point in waiting for an AMD system that supports DDR2 as there likely
won't be one.

Also the article lists that both manufacturers are looking at DDR3 and
Rambus XDR as possible future technologies. Depending on how successful
DDR2 is, those future technologies could be pretty far off, or pretty
near.

Yousuf Khan
 
Was the 90nm process technology only a short term technology, and should
we have gone from 130nm straight to 65nm? Better yet, should we not
skip 65nm altogether and go straight to 45nm?

If DDR2 is only a short term technology, perhaps we should have skipped
from SDRAM to DDR4. DDR3 may not last very long either.
So you're saying that you don't mind paying extra for a technology that
may not even get cheaper because it may not have much production life
left in it; and it may get phased out long before you're ready to
switch your processor out, not allowing you to salvage any of your
investment in it?
Click to expand...

DDR2 will be around for a bit. DDR simply cannot scale to the same
datarate (at comparable yield levels) as DDR2. PC3200 DDR SDRAM was
a stop gap of sorts, with bumped voltages. In negative spin parlance,
PC3200 DDR SDRAM is "overclocked memory" that took over what was
rightfully a planned DDR2 speed bin, PC2-3200.

The sweet spot for DDR2 will hit around DDR2-667, and DDR2-800 will
be pushed out if DDR3 gets pushed out.

Going from DDR to DDR2 is a natural progression. "Not having much
production life left in it" isn't a conspiracy by Intel to drive
the screws to AMD. It's just that DRAM datarates are currently
doubling every 3 years or so, and DDR2's range of 400 to 800 is
only good for 3 years. The DRAM manufacturers can keep DDR2 around
for a while and drive it up past 1 Gbps, but the timing pressure
on the DRAM core becomes greater.
If that's the case, then obviously you're a man of
great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,
because if Intel itself doesn't believe in DDR2, then there's not much
point in waiting for an AMD system that supports DDR2 as there likely
won't be one.
Click to expand...

AMD will support DDR2, then transition to DDR3. Otherwise, sometime
down the road, Intel will be shipping products with DDR2-667 while AMD
will be shipping DDR-400, and that scenario will last a year while
everyone sits around waiting for DDR3.
Also the article lists that both manufacturers are looking at DDR3 and
Rambus XDR as possible future technologies. Depending on how successful
DDR2 is, those future technologies could be pretty far off, or pretty
near.
Click to expand...

Just a bit of FUD then.
 
David said:
Was the 90nm process technology only a short term technology, and should
we have gone from 130nm straight to 65nm? Better yet, should we not
skip 65nm altogether and go straight to 45nm?

If DDR2 is only a short term technology, perhaps we should have skipped
from SDRAM to DDR4. DDR3 may not last very long either.
Click to expand...

Great rhetoric, but you know very well that there is a difference
between transparent technology like process technology, and technology
which you have to buy new supporting hardware for like DRAM standards.

A processor at 90nm works much like a processor at 130nm, and it may
even fit into the same socket as the previous generation processor --
thus making it transparent. If they had made DDR2 compatible with DDR,
where you could simply exchange the old RAM for the new RAM and plug it
into the same slots, then no problem -- that's transparent technology,
and no one would care if was really DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, or whatever
underneath.
Going from DDR to DDR2 is a natural progression. "Not having much
production life left in it" isn't a conspiracy by Intel to drive
the screws to AMD. It's just that DRAM datarates are currently
doubling every 3 years or so, and DDR2's range of 400 to 800 is
only good for 3 years. The DRAM manufacturers can keep DDR2 around
for a while and drive it up past 1 Gbps, but the timing pressure
on the DRAM core becomes greater.
Click to expand...

It's not the progression from DDR1 to DDR2 that's being questioned
here. It's the possible progression from DDR1 straight to DDR3 that
might be spoiling the party here.
AMD will support DDR2, then transition to DDR3. Otherwise, sometime
down the road, Intel will be shipping products with DDR2-667 while AMD
will be shipping DDR-400, and that scenario will last a year while
everyone sits around waiting for DDR3.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point. Are they going to sit around waiting for
DDR3?

Yousuf Khan
 
Great rhetoric, but you know very well that there is a difference
between transparent technology like process technology, and technology
which you have to buy new supporting hardware for like DRAM standards.
Click to expand...

If you want a 90nm processor with faster bus/interconnect, you
will have to move to a new board. You can make the 90nm processor
with the same bus/interconnect (datarate) as the previous generation,
Then again, if the point is to get a higher datarate bus/interconnect,
there is no point in staying with the same system board.
A processor at 90nm works much like a processor at 130nm, and it may
even fit into the same socket as the previous generation processor --
thus making it transparent. If they had made DDR2 compatible with DDR,
where you could simply exchange the old RAM for the new RAM and plug it
into the same slots, then no problem -- that's transparent technology,
and no one would care if was really DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, or whatever
underneath.
Click to expand...

Take a look again. DDR2 device command set is a superset of DDR
devices. DDR2 devices can be made to pretend that they're plain
jane DDR devices. The mode registers are supersets, the extra
per nibble differential strobes can be turned off and used just
as per byte single ended reference strobe. The voltages are a bit
different. Then again, 90nm processors typically have slightly
different voltages from 130nm processors. DDR2 devices are compatible
with DDR devices. You just have to ask DRAM module manufacturers to
create these oddball DDR2 device in DDR format modules for you to
fit into your criteria of "compatible", and plug the bastard DDR2
modules into DDR slots. (with no gains in datarate)
It's not the progression from DDR1 to DDR2 that's being questioned
here. It's the possible progression from DDR1 straight to DDR3 that
might be spoiling the party here.
Click to expand...

There is no such possibility. Anyone suggesting such possibility is
not familiar with the progressions of the DRAM market. He/she can
just as well suggest that 65nm technology is a short term technology,
and we shouuld jump from 90nm technology to 45nm.
Which is exactly the point. Are they going to sit around waiting for
DDR3?
Click to expand...

No.
 
great wealth. For the rest of us, who are trying to decide on whether
to purchase a new processor/mobo or make the existing one last a little
longer until the technology stabilizes, well this would be useful to
know. Even people considering buying AMD systems need to know this,
Click to expand...

I find that it's never a good idea to try and guess what technology to buy
based on what "the market" *will* do sometime down the line. It's an
endless treadmill and you can never keep up.

When I buy a new mobo I assume I will be buying new memory and processor
at the same time. I would be foolish to think any other way.

It's a fact; the tech. never stabilizes and the next great thing is always
just around the corner.

~Jason
 
Hold on just a minute! Is your calculator equipped with a Pentium CPU?
Because it looks like you've been bitten by the FDIV bug all over again.

Unbuffered, unregistered, SDRAM DIMMs
512-MB DDR-400 = US$35
512-MB DDR2-533 = US$60

That's +71% in my book, not +10%...
Click to expand...

You can run the numbers any way you want. I think it's best to use the
best price/performance point for each technology and then compare MB/$.

For DDR: PC3200 512Mb -> $35
For DDR2: PC2-4200 512Mb -> $45
http://www.buyaib.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2342
http://www.18004memory.com/cart/addcart.asp?Try=Yes&itemID=502568&itemTYPE=cat

That gives me about 30%.

DS
 
Jason said:
I find that it's never a good idea to try and guess what technology to buy
based on what "the market" *will* do sometime down the line. It's an
endless treadmill and you can never keep up.

When I buy a new mobo I assume I will be buying new memory and processor
at the same time. I would be foolish to think any other way.

It's a fact; the tech. never stabilizes and the next great thing is always
just around the corner.
Click to expand...

Actually I've been fortunate enough to find solutions that maintain
backward compatibility for me. I carried a set of SDRAM from a K6 to an
Athlon system. The Athlon system that I had, had the ability to accept
both SDRAM and DDR memory, so once I was ready to upgrade the RAM, I was
already prepared. And I fully expect to carry my DDR over to a new
Athlon 64 system, whenever i'm ready to buy one of those things. The DDR
is not top of the line anymore (PC2100), but it will still work in the
A64. Then if I feel like upgrading the RAM some more, then I can go for
more uptodate DDR.

Yousuf Khan
 
David said:
Take a look again. DDR2 device command set is a superset of DDR
devices. DDR2 devices can be made to pretend that they're plain
jane DDR devices. The mode registers are supersets, the extra
per nibble differential strobes can be turned off and used just
as per byte single ended reference strobe. The voltages are a bit
different. Then again, 90nm processors typically have slightly
different voltages from 130nm processors. DDR2 devices are compatible
with DDR devices. You just have to ask DRAM module manufacturers to
create these oddball DDR2 device in DDR format modules for you to
fit into your criteria of "compatible", and plug the bastard DDR2
modules into DDR slots. (with no gains in datarate)
Click to expand...

Well, if they could've made DDR2 physically and electrically compatible
with DDR1, then they should have.

Yousuf Khan
 
Yousuf Khan said:
It may have known DDR2 was only a short-term technology all along, but
decided to foist it on the world anyways.
Click to expand...

And then again, they may not have "known" this.
CoolTechZone::Industry Insider Report: Intel Knew DDR2 was Poor Design
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1197

It must've been trying to get AMD to adopt it and then watch as it was
forced to adopt DDR3 in short order.
Click to expand...

Oh, the horror!

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
 
Well, if they could've made DDR2 physically and electrically compatible
with DDR1, then they should have.
Click to expand...

The point of making a new standard with DDR2 is that you CAN make these
new DRAM parts with lower voltages, and as daytripper points out, uses
less power.

You CAN make DDR2 devices pretend that they're DDR devices, you can even
make sure that the DDR2 parts are tolerant of DDR voltages. Then again,
there would be no point in it. You'd win nothing in terms of power
consumption or increased datarate.
 
Some high end graphics cards are already running DDR3.
Click to expand...

Yes but aren't those ram chips soldered right to the cards PCB?
I would think making sticks for motherboards isn't as easy.

Ed
 
Back
Top