RDRAM, DDR, and DDR2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also have a machine with RDRAM and have been wanting to add to my memory. It came with 2 - 128 sticks of 800MHZ. Not enough!

It is going to run me $105 for another 2 - 128 sticks. Would much prefer 2 - 256 but that would be $206. They have to be in pairs.

I'm just going to bite the bullet!

____________________________
2002 Dell Dimension 8200
P4 - 2.53GHz
256MB PC800 RDRAM - Samsung
64MB nvidia GeForce2 MX w/TV-out
160GB Western Digital HD
 
sd-ram is very good in my opinion, mabye not the fastest but its lasted a bloody long time. It lasted from original pentiums to some of the earlier athlon xp's, and thats quite a feat. Rd-ram was made in a deal between intel and rambus inc. Never really worked, and its very expensive and almost a rarity nowerdays.
 
wayne...RDRAM would have worked, but there were a few things holding back which I will list.

1. A 16 or 32 Bit interface poses an extreme limitation despite the high transfer rate.
2. In a time when 100 or 133 transfer rate were very popular, 600, 800, or 1066 were very difficult to manufacture.
3. Rambus was not willing to give rights to other companies so they could manufacture RDRAM. Samsung was one of the very few that got rights to manufacture.
4. It was not widely accepted since it came at a time when DDR was becoming popular.
5. You needed continuity modules and you had to have all slots filled up which added to the cost of the RAM and overall system.
6. Overall, the performance was slightly better than the early DDR RAM, but the cost at which RDRAM came was not better and RDRAM systems were expensive.
 
RDRAM would've been a speed daemon if there were not continuity modules and it had atleast 64-Bit (Single Channel) interface. RDRAM would've whooped DDR and DDR2 if that been the case, but it wasn't. Actually, it would've improved gaming performance also by alot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom