rdram- is it a scam?

[fucho]

Hello-
I'm another one of the masses delving into digital home recording. I'm pretty naive to the ways of the computer, but am researching as fast as I can. I've looked at many poster's specs here on the BBS, and a lot of people are using ddr sdram. But isn't rdram all the rage? The friendly people at Dell can't say enough about it. (I know it would be better to build, but the risk of ignorant blunder on my part seems too high). I heard that only 2.4Ghz or faster will utilize rdram- is this true? If I decided to save some dough & step down to ddr (& maybe 2.0Ghz also) would I eventually be sorry? Thanks in advance!
-f

 

[brzilian]

Rambus RAM or RDRAM was the original RAM type used by the first P4 systems with the Intel 850 chipset - it is not new at all. Intel later released the 845 chipset that used DDR RAM mainly because RDRAM was so damn expensive.

From what I can tell, current iterations of DDR RAM are catching up to the performance of RDRAM so the extra cost is not easily justifiable.

 

[drstawl]

Yes.

 

[brzilian]

Yes.

????

 

[Bigus Dickus]

But isn't rdram all the rage?

It was, but DDR systems are nearly equal in performance (talking about Intel platforms here... AMD doesn't use RDRAM memory) and a bit less expensive.

The friendly people at Dell can't say enough about it.

That's because they make more money selling RDRAM. If you're buying a P4 system, avoid SDR SDRAM, but DDR SDRAM is just fine.

I heard that only 2.4Ghz or faster will utilize rdram- is this true?

No. There was a platform (motherboard) for Pentium III chips that used RDRAM (i820 or i840, can't remember which) for speeds down to 500Mhz. For Pentium 4 systems, the i850 chipset supports processors from 1.3GHz (the slowest P4 made) and up, depending on the specific motherboard.

What Dell was probably referring to was... well, I'm not sure. I thought at first maybe the PC1066/533fsb platforms, but those go down to 2.26GHz I think. The salesman was probably just talking out of his ass trying to get you to spend as much as possible.

If I decided to save some dough & step down to ddr (& maybe 2.0Ghz also) would I eventually be sorry?

Not at all. For one, the performance difference between RDRAM and DDR SDRAM is not that great, and you'll save some money. Further, RDRAM is a dying memory type, and you probably won't be able to use that memory if you upgrade parts of your system a year or so down the road (more specifically, what I mean is that future motherboards likely will not support RDRAM, which you will need for a substantial processor or system upgrade). With DDR memory, you will have a greater chance of using it during an upgrade in the future, or having the ability to switch to an AMD based system if you so desired.

Bottom line... save the money for other areas where it would be more beneficial to you (in this case, a better soundcard, better mics, etc.).

 

[Slackmaster2K]

Ok, RDRAM is faster than DDR, without any question.

The issue, then, is that RDRAM at this time does not provide enough real-world performance gain to warrant the extra cost (which isn't really that much anymore). DDR is more economical and provides near or equal performance.

It's not a scam. It was perhaps a miscalculation by Intel. They knew that they'd be pushing the 3-4Ghz mark with the P4 and decided to jump right into RDRAM with the introduction of the P4.

DDR is pretty quick, but it's just an extention of a technology that's becoming dated. The future will probably hold something like RDRAM or better (magnetic dram!). After all, something doesn't sound right about a 4Ghz processor on a 333Mhz bus! (of course who knows how fast sdram can get)

That said, if I were building a P4 system today I'd go with DDR on an i845 chipset. Memory is something that you don't buy with the intention that you'll still be able to use it in a few years. Occasionally it's possible, but a typical full "upgrade" would consist of an upgraded motherboard, CPU, and memory...so get whatever is most economical and efficient now, which is DDR!

Slackmaster 2000

 

[fucho]

Thanks a lot! You folks are awesome. I can save a few hundred bucks by not going ga-ga over the shiniest machine. The following should maybe be a new thread, but since Bigus mentioned sound cards-

The Delta 44/ 66, etc. don't support MIDI, yes? If I wanted to use one, I could get around this by (as mentioned in another thread) either using a soft synth, or using an additional sound card that would support Midi. Would either of these methods be compramising the qualtiy/ versatility of the MIDI? I.E.- could I still download Midi stuff from the web & use it on a soft synth, or would it be more of a closed system? Or- with a cheap-o sound card, like Sound Blaster, would the Midi sounds suck a little?
Maybe I'm holding the picture upside-down.

One more thing- a guy told me that there have been enough improvements in sound cards recently (besides the higher sampling rate) that it's a better idea to get a more modest new one than to get a higher-end old one (like a Layla 20 for example). Any opinions on this? Thanks again,
-f

 

[dr grip]

delta 44/66

The delta 44 and 66 have no midi in and out...

However, since you mentioned soft synth anyhow...you can get the Midiman Oxygen 8 for $140, which is both a midi controller and provides midi in and out for connecting other devices. I have used it flawlessy as a controller for softsynths, rack synths, and as an in / out midi interface for programming my Korg MS2000 via Emagic's sounddiver.