Intel To Drop RAMBUS In Favor of DDR RAM 152
El Pollo Loco writes: "Anandtech has this news article. Basically, Intel has decided to drop expensive rambus memory and instead to go with cheaper DDR memory."
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".
Finally (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Finally (Score:1)
Re:Finally [OT] (Score:1)
Intents and purposes. Sorry for being a grammar nazi, but I just couldn't take it anymore.
Intensive purposes makes me picture a bunch of Rambus execs in sweatbands and jogging suits chicking their pulses as they type up new 'cease-and-desist' orders.
Rambus (Score:1, Funny)
Re:maybe not (Score:1)
Oh, hell... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:1)
Fortunately, given the results of their lawsuit with Infineon, and the disclosure of the Rambus internal memo that gave evidence of Rambus not disclosing information the the JEDEC, the standards committee they were supposed to be participating in, they don't have much of a litigious leg to stand on anymore.
And they do actually make things, they just happen to suck(arguably). PC2400 (266MHz) DDR absolutely smokes 800MHz RDRAM, and it's cheap, too.
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:3, Funny)
Nah. Rambus has exactly three divisions - the research department, the licensing department, and the extortion...err, legal department... ;)
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:1)
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:1)
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:1)
I was always amazed at how little RAM the consoles had when they came out, and when I found out it was RDRAM I understood why. The expansion module was another 4MB of RDRAM.
It provided the best memory bandwidth at the time IIRC.
Re:Oh, hell... (Score:1)
Principles or Performance? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how much of this switch was due to the recent scandals - are Intel worried about the pockets of their customers? have they decided to stick with less, ahem, notorious technologies? are they truly concerned with the performance? I notice they haven't mentioned comparitive benchmarks in the article though... not a good sign.
If their competitors follow suit, we'll see what happens.
Re:Principles or Performance? (Score:1)
Rambus [yahoo.com] stock Price about 7.42 a share, watch it drop when the bell sounds. While they aen't dead, check the stories of their other technologies below, they'll certainly be hurt with a lack of confidence on the part of investors. I wonder how all those stockholder suits are doing...
Re:Principles or Performance? (Score:1)
Anyone who has seen beta and vhs side by side would pick beta hands down. All the tv stations use it. It is better technology. It was more expensive. People bought vhs, beta disapeared.
Rambus comes out, if you put a pIV with rambus next to a pIV with ddr and run them with the same apps the one with rambus will almost always win, more bus bandwith, the latency is usually less.
Rambus is more expensive. People bitch and buy ddr, now rambus will start supplying memory only in high end machines and we will only be able to buy the inferior ddr.
just my 2 cents..
wha? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wha? (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course this still says nothing about the benchmarking process, should be fun seeing unbiassed reports as they trickle out.
Re:wha? (Score:1)
Tell me on thing. The setup Tom tested (P4) - would you consider it to be a server machine, or a workstation machine? The 'line' between what gets to be desktop strength machine, and what gets to be server strength machine is fading away, and to me it looks silly that Tom tests Sandra and office suite on such a monster.
I think he should've tested Oracle (and other 'heavy' stuff) on it, and show us the performance gain then. I don't really think people will be buying such P4 config just to get few hundred frames in Q3...
Re:wha? (Score:2)
Note that I personally use an Athlon XP with DDR. It's just that I hate to see misconceptions running around. In the past, yes, DDR was faster than Rambus, but that's not really the case anymore.
Intel no longer setting all the standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel tried to push RAMBUS heavily. In fact, it tried to ram it down people's throats (no pun intended). For various reasons, not least of all cost, not too many people were happy with this state of affairs.
I can recall when Intel were pushing RAMBUS as the best thing since sliced bread and were denouncing DDR RAM as a pile of pants but now the company's been forced to perform a complete volte face.
Why does this matter? It matters because Intel, despite it's near total dominance of the desktop market, has been shifted from leading the herd to being forced to run with it. It just goes to prove, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.
Of course, all this doesn't change the fact that Intel is a major player, and will get its own way in lots of other areas but it's nice to see that it can't win 'em all.
Additionally, one fewer memory standard should help drive down the long-term cost of DDR RAM further (right now it's a twice what it was in November 2001 but still at least a third cheaper than March 2001).
Good news all round. Score one for the other guys.
Re:Intel no longer setting all the standards? (Score:1)
I'm glad I was able to grab my DDR SDRAM when I did. I got 2GB for around $130. Can't wait until it drops down that low again.
RMBS stock (Score:1)
After hours trading opened at 6.24 (drop of about 14%), but it seems to have recovered to 7.10. This is after rising 20% yesterday because of a "design" breakthrough (the RIMM 4200)
RMBS [yahoo.com]
Wakeup Call (Score:1)
"This is the market calling, we want fast and cheap RAM."
"Oh, yes, we finally listened. I was concerned you might be Rambus Attorney's trying to sue us over breach of contract."
"Nope, not us, we don't care, but wait until their stock gets two about 20 a share, anyone who still cares about Intel getting into bed with the devil might!"
Only happy because of how Rambus ran it's company. (Score:1)
A split in technologies/commitment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though there are several other P4 motherboards out there supporting DDR RAM for the P4, the point is that Intel will have to support DDR and RAMBUS for their P4 fully.
I can see complications brewing... this should test Intel's mettle.
Otherwise, they may decide to leave the current P4 chips with RAMBUS for now, in which case the customers who bought into it are screwed.
I'm an AMD fan (see me twirl!), but RAMBUS have screwed Intel for the last time with overpriced and underperforming memory.
Re:A split in technologies/commitment? (Score:2)
"I can see complications brewing... this should test Intel's mettle."
Wow, remind me not to read
Re:A split in technologies/commitment? (Score:2)
Also, as you may know, Intel are much better supported under Microsoft, since their limited hardware configurations make it easy to test and acquire stability.
As a AMD user, I have had severe trouble under Windows 2000 with my AMD machines, but the Intel ones are solid.
Which comes to the point I was trying to make: Intel will have to work hard from now on to keep customers happy, who will start to blame motherboard/OS problems on the chip.
As a Windows evangelist you should understand these things. Duh!
good! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good! (Score:2)
The answer, probably, is that a couple of years ago when the decision was made, they wanted to avoid being in a commodity market. But AMD has been successful enough with DDR that they've prevented Intel from differentiating themselves this way. If there were still only one viable CPU supplier, this strategy could have improved Intel's bottom line. But with the Athlon/DDR as competition, all that Rambus is accomplishing is keeping Intel system prices high.
Look at P4 systems in BestBuy or CompUSA... hardly any use Rambus, most just use regular SDRAM. Consumers buy CPU cycles, not memory bandwidth. Your Grandma (or your VP of Sales) knows that a 2GHz machine is usually better than a 1GHz machine, but their eyes glaze over when you talk about serial memory access.
Re:good! (Score:2)
Same reason you buy anything - price/benefit ratio.
If it had been faster and/or smaller price difference, it could have succeded.
-
RMBS is down (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RMBS is down (Score:1)
Re:RMBS is down (Score:1)
DDR cheaper? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:DDR cheaper? (Score:3, Informative)
if you check pricewatch RDRAM and DDR have almost identical costs. if someone is charging more for RDRAM then they are just lagging behind the market...
Re:DDR cheaper? (Score:2)
if you check pricewatch RDRAM and DDR have almost identical costs. if someone is charging more for RDRAM then they are just lagging behind the market...
I'm not sure, but I think it might have something to do with Rambus charging higher royalties from it's patents on DDR technology.
Rambus makes money no matter which memory Intel chooses. It just might make more off of RD-RAM. Rambus isn't going belly-up any time soon.
hmmm, what else is a-foot? (Score:1)
hmmm, food for thought from someone who's shopping for a new mobo... (hmmm, Soyo or ABIT?)
how is this news? (Score:1)
P4s still using SDRAM (Score:1)
It seems the public is very fickle- they want a "fast" processor without looking at overall system performance
Meanwhile, AMD is getting away with selling Athlon 1800+ chips, which many people actually think run at 1800+ mhz.
Regardless of price, I'm convinced most ordinary people want ONE NUMBER for which to compare PCs.... not 17 different variables... they want one single number to sum it all up- and that seems to be mhz.
Meanwhile, until the economy "straightens out"- businesses seem to still be buying P3 systems, or at least shying away from the bleeding edge. At least both job sites I work at have been very conservative in their purchasing...
Over reacting (Score:1, Informative)
Read the article carefully. The change is on 1 product line only.
Whoa there just a second (Score:5, Interesting)
First, this is an EBM [ebnews.com] story. Why link to a 2nd hand report that has a link to the primary source right on the page?
Second, it's spurious: "An Intel workstation roadmap secured by EBN" strongly implies that this is not an official Intel announcement.
Third, while it's not such a huge deal for Intel, it's a huge furry deal for Rambus Inc., the well known firm of lawyers. Rambus Inc. is a public company, and as such has an obligation to announce significant events effecting future earnings. "A spokeswoman for Rambus Inc. said she couldn't comment on new Intel workstation chipsets supporting DDR, and referred all questions to Intel" simply doesn't cut it. Rambus Inc. might be greedy lying parasites, but they're surely not stupid enough to sit on information that they must - must - have known about prior to this (alleged) policy change.
Given that Rambus Inc. share price rose 22% yesterday [theinquirer.net] based on the news that Intel had adopted the 533Mhz FSB to support RDRAM, the SEC will no doubt be having a good, long look at their disclosures and these "yes we will/no we won't" announcements, and asking who exactly is releasing them, and who is benefitting from the share fluctuations.
Let's hold fire on this until it's been confirmed by both Intel and Rambus Inc. Please. Pretty please.
Re:Whoa there just a second (Score:1)
Re:Whoa there just a second (Score:1)
There has been no news on the financial wires indicating INTC dropping RMBS. I guarantee that at soon as that hit the wires, RMBS would probably drop 50%. When I see an announcement straight out of RMBS or INTC, I'll believe it.
Re:Whoa there just a second (Score:3, Informative)
As the Register points out in their discussion of the story [theregus.com], this change only applies to the Placer and Granite Bay chipsets being developed for single- or dual-processor Xeon workstations. The existing RDRAM-based chipsets (the 850 and 860) will be refreshed with support for the 533MHz FSB but will otherwise remain unchanged.
Finally... (Score:1)
At least this will finally make my job a little easier and I won't have to double check all the new computer sales as much anymore.
No! (Score:5, Funny)
against the terrible human rights situation in
communist East Germany.
Buying DDR RAM is supporting the communists!
Re:No! (Score:1)
Re:No! (Score:3, Funny)
Long live the People's Revolution!
Link to original EBN article (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.ebnews.com/story/OEG20020226S0040 [ebnews.com]
The story is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Also, although not new products, the next iterations of its 850 and 860 chipsets, supporting a 533MHz front-side, will support RDRAM when they arrive, probably in the second half of this year.
This ties in perfectly with Tom's Hardware review of a new, pre-release 533MHz RDRAM chipset and the Anandtech review of the new Intel DDR-based chipset linked to by
Re:The story is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm. Did you read your own link?
Intel Corp. in the second half of this year will drop its final Direct Rambus DRAMs support in new computer products
The 850 and 860 will continue to support RDRAM as planned. But following those on the roadmap are Placer and Granite Bay, both DDR only. Your quote only indicates a phase-out. Maybe if there was some huge upsurge in demand for the 133 MHz releases of the 8[56]0 they'd change their minds, but for now, RDRAM is off Intel's map.
Re:The story is misleading (Score:2)
At least for desktop platforms we'll see DDR-SDRAM (Score:2)
Re:At least for desktop platforms we'll see DDR-SD (Score:2)
for servers (Score:2, Informative)
Intel has always known that RAMBUS is not the best thing for servers, since servers need large amounts of memory. The serial configuration RAMBUS must be put it, along with its higher latency, leads to poor performance when in large amounts. This isn't acceptable, and doesn't happen with DDR, its the primary reason they are switching.
That and RAMBUS runs hotter then the P4 CPUs
Close... for workstations (Score:2, Insightful)
The EBN article clearly says that the new chipsets are for workstations (graphics, software engineerings, MCAD, etc.). Folks, these are machines that have at least 512MB of RAM. They are not mainstream desktops...
For now, Intel is still pushing RDRAM for mainstream desktops...
Cheap thrills.. (Score:1)
Xeon only? (Score:1)
So, just curious, maybe they will go on making P4 RDRAM chipsets. There are real, honest advantages to serial bus and serious problems to paraller bus when the clock rate goes up.
Just why do you think there's only Nvidia's dual DDR P4 chipset? Which no-one seems to be using too much? One DDR module has 184 pins, dual that to 368 and I start seeing black spots just thinking about routing that in PCB..
In any case, I don't like Rambus any more than stereotypical
Re:Xeon only? (Score:2)
Hey, I like this idea, but let's not float it too soon. I think they should let Rabmus go bankrupt first and buy up the IP at the liquidation auction. There is no hurry, and if this announcement is right (and applies to all lines of future Intel chips) we won't have to wait long anyway. You can bet that Rambus people will be trying agressively to sell their IP pretty soon. I hope they get stonewalled.
Two Words For Rambus: (Score:1)
Stating the Obvious (Score:1)
seemingly counter-intuitive for performance` (Score:1)
So basically Intel... (Score:1)
Very odd... (Score:5, Interesting)
So I see one of two things here. Either this report is wildly inaccurate or misinterpreted, or Intel sure is shooting themselves in the foot yet again. As soon as they create technology that can utilize Rambus' enormous memory bandwidth, they can the technology? Something about that doesn't sound right. Intel may be dumb, but they're stubborn too. If this is true, they sure picked a hell of a time to seriously rethink their relationship with Rambus.
Re:Very odd... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very odd... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand though, Intel is really pulling away in raw clock speed. Obviously AMD wipes the floor with Intel at the same clock speed, but that fact is AMD looks to be nowhere close to getting over the 2GHZ mark.
The AMD vs. Intel debate is starting to sound a exactly like the Mac vs. PC clock speed debates, where G4s clobbered P2's and P3's at equivalant clock speeds, but the Intel chips were available at SUCH higher MHZ that the issue was moot.
Re:Very odd... (Score:2)
Interestingly, Tom says that the overclocked P4s he tested are not supposed to be released until Q3! That means we'll probably see the 2666MHz P4 and Athlon 2666+ released around the same time. I guess Intel is waiting for the Rambus and/or motherboard support.
Not Odd (Score:2)
People don't buy x86 for speed. They buy x86 (whether it's Intel or AMD) because it's very cheap and has decent performance for its price. If you want speed and price isn't a big factor, then you don't buy x86. You don't buy RAMBUS because your CPU isn't from Intel; your CPU is from IBM or DEC (RIP) or someone else, and you use whatever type of RAM they tell you to.
Having fast expensive memory systems for x86 chips defies that principle. There is no market for it.
Newflash: RAMBUS takes up cordless bungee jumping! (Score:1)
In other news, bookmakers have opened wagers on what augers in first at RAMBUS. Their business leaders, their lawyers, or their stock prices.
Rambus was just starting to seem like a good idea (Score:3, Informative)
Check out:
Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com]
"This is because the Pentium 4 has a problem: the increase in clock speed (e.g. P4/2533 or P4/2666) will be rendered useless by the slow DDR SDRAM memory bus of the 845 platform. In the mass market, the 845 chipset dominates by nearly 100% - and this will remain the case for the next six months. But only 533 MHz RDRAM enables the processor to attain high performance. Eventually, the dual-channel DDR solution will receive some sort of technological boost, however there's still no sign of development in this area."
I guess there's only one thing left to say: GO AMD!!!
Re:Rambus was just starting to seem like a good id (Score:2)
That's not what the story says (Score:5, Informative)
But that's not what the article [ebnews.com] says. It's talking only about chipsets for servers and workstations, where, indeed, the 860 is being replaced by the just introducted dual-channel DDR E-7500 (Plumas) and the upcoming dual-channel DDR Placer (as well as a just-introduced chipset from Broadcom), and where the 850 will be replaced by the dual-channel DDR Granite Bay chipset, due in Q3 or so.
Thing is, dual-channel DDR for the *desktop* won't arrive from Intel until sometime in 2003, with the Springdale chipset. (Dual-channel DDRII, in fact.) VIA and SiS are both trying to get their dual-channel DDR chipsets out in time for the 533 FSB P4s (doubtful, but they should be in full swing by Q3), but, again, if you want the very highest-performing P4 desktop, and you want an Intel chipset, you'll either need to ridiculously overpay for a Granite Bay (workstation oriented) motherboard, or you'll have to use the 850E with PC1066 RDRAM, or you'll have to wait until Springdale in 2003.
So, to reiterate:
1) Yes, RDRAM is gone from all future Intel chipset introductions save the 850E, which is just a speed bump, not a new chipset.
2) But that's not what this article is talking about; it's only talking about servers and workstations.
3) RDRAM won't be completely gone until there is a dual-channel DDR chipset to replace it on the desktop; soon from VIA and SiS, not until 2003 from Intel.
Cheaper? (Score:2)
I don't know about the rest of the world, but where I live (Denmark), the prices for DDR-RAM and RD-RAM are nearly the same.
Interesting decision (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Took 'em long enough (Score:2)
Re:Took 'em long enough (Score:1)
Now as to the future, that's a little unclear. There is now PC2700 DDR, but no official support for it - and Rambus was about to get bumped up in speed, too.
My real guess is that what we REALLY want for the multi-gigahertz processors is QDR (DDR2) memory, especially if the motherboard manufacturers will be willing to interleave multiple banks, like the nForce does...
steve
Re:Took 'em long enough (Score:1)
RAMBUS prices are dropping (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RAMBUS prices are dropping (Score:1)
RAMBUS (Score:3, Funny)
I always thought RAMBUS sounded like a brand of condom.
Intel is insightful. (Score:1)
Previous article... (Score:2)
Is Intel reneging on their statements of yesterday, or is Tom's Hardware or Anandtech just getting false information?
If RDRAM is no longer more expensive and is in fact a better choice for a fast system, should the company be left out in the cold? Bear in mind that I don't like the way RAMBUS has been treating people, but I do believe that the best product should always be able to live on, and RDRAM has surely been making strides.
.09 micron process (Score:1)
RDRAM is cheaper? (Score:1)
And didnt Intel just recently announce that they were going with a quad pumped 133mhz bus (I.E. Rambuss 1066) for their 2.5ghz chips?
This is just so much fluffer.
i'm not understanding (Score:1)
that's stupid (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that Tom's Rambus reversal isn't based on some kind of payoff, but if it's based on technical reasons, he has yet to share them with us. His article on the topic was just shoddy.
In particular, he kept comparing his custom P2200 - 2600s to an XP 2000+ and blaming the difference on memory bandwidth. Well, the name XP 2000+ *means* "about as fast as a P4 2000". If the speed goes up on the P4, of course the XP will lag. So if in "MPEG-2 video encoding, the Pentium 4/2666 is approximately 25% ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+", well, 2666 is approximately ahead of 2000. Where does memory bandwidth fit in? The rest of his benchmarks are similarly unsurprising and misattributed.
Also strange was the fact that in his review of the uninspiring performance of the KT-333, Tom failed to take advantage of MSI's 166MHz fsb option to see what the chipset was like when driven to it's full capacity. He could've just taken one of his custom unlocked chips and adjusted the multiplier to match the speed of the normal chips at 133MHz fsb. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference, but it seems a pretty glaring oversight. Wouln't you at least check?
It's too melodramatic to argue that he's on the take. But given his previous opinions, I wonder why he's so desperate to read more good things about Rambus into his data than are really there.
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:1)
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:2)
His articles are continuously, and blatantly biased -- and while the target of that bias does change, it remains that most of the articles read like National Enquirer stories.
Take, for example, the KT266A vs nForce 420 [tomshardware.com] test. The benchmarks show the nForce in the middle of the pack for most tests - roughly half the KT266A boards faster and half slower. And with margins of 2% in most tests. Yet the "Conclusion" was that "KT266A Trounces nForce 420D" and that "the nForce 420D is currently no match for the new KT266A". What a load of crap. Of course little things like total system cost and features were ignored - the nForce has a significantly better sound chip than the KT266A and all nForce boards have integrated network (only some KT266A's do).
The P4/2666 and 533 MHz Rambus article is nothing more than sheer yellow journalism. Benchmarking a system that won't be available until at LEAST the end of the year, comparing it against currently available systems, and concluding that "this will put it quite a distance ahead of its competition from AMD" isn't journalism. It's being a patsy to the latest company to show you a new toy.
Sure, there's the Claw hammer preview... with nothing more than a few snapshots. At least it appears to be mostly devoid of sensationalist statements though. The above review of an unavailable system would've been just fine had Tom and his staff not stooped to phrases normally seen at the supermarket checkout lines. They even tried to put in some moderating comments, but they are overshadowed by the sensationlism elsewhere in the article.
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, Tom Pabst's name is the one that's in that logo on the top of every page (similar to AnandTech's Anand Lal Shimpi), so by doing so he puts his integrity at stake with every article.
Ian
Oh Bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
I write for a game website doing Hardware reviews with 52million hits a month. I am just as guilty as the next guy. You can't help but be biased based on your own personal experience and background, dealings with hardware reps, etc... it all colors your reports and opinions.
Take, for example, the KT266A vs nForce 420 [tomshardware.com] test. The benchmarks show the nForce in the middle of the pack for most tests - roughly half the KT266A boards faster and half slower. And with margins of 2% in most tests. Yet the "Conclusion" was that "KT266A Trounces nForce 420D" and that "the nForce 420D is currently no match for the new KT266A". What a load of crap. Of course little things like total system cost and features were ignored - the nForce has a significantly better sound chip than the KT266A and all nForce boards have integrated network (only some KT266A's do).
Wrong... the KT266A, in terms of performance and value and stability (he doesn't touch on it much in the article, but if you have been keeping up there has been a glaring drop off in Nvidia's quality of drivers as of late, including significant deviations in their WHQL AGP4x driver implimentations which is causing a great many Via and SiS based chipset boards to BSOD in ALL ms operating systems with infinite loop errors and nv4disp.dll problems). Trounce is a strong word, but it is obviously better than the nForce (and your perception of audio is interesting and an opinion of question too).
His reversal is pretty clear, though I guess he could have stated it more obviously for those people like you that need it slapped in their face and can't just understand what they are reading. You may have a valid point, however, regarding comparing a 2600 system directly to the 2000XP, but only if you take it strictly as a hardware benchmark test and not as an example of the future months ahead and Intel's newest chips due out.
Re:Tom Pabst... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DDR memory (Score:1)
Its a dancing machine! Watch the ram as it tries the ever difficult Paranoia 190 in SSR mode! Hear the shouts as it completes a Boom Boom Dollar trick set! This ram is fly and got its groove on.
The joke is old. (Score:1)
The obligatory jokes about the country formerly known as East Germany and Konami's Dance Dance Revolution every time Slashdot posts a story about double data rate SDRAM are getting so old that they're already in the encyclopedia [wikipedia.com].
Re:This is not new news! It's ENTERTAINMENT! (Score:1)
And now we fiddle whilst RAMBUS burns.