Author Topic: DDR vs DDR2? (Read 420 times)

Krusty · « **on:** June 07, 2006, 12:49:09 PM »

The way I had it explained to me is that DDR had problems when it first was introduced, so they introduced DDR2 that (along with a different architecture) bypassed those problems. Then DDR surpassed DDR2 after all the problems were ironed out.

So, why is DDR2 so common in motherboards for AMD processors, now?

I even saw a review for a new motherboard that supported up to 8GB of RAM, but it was DDR2 (this was a normal motherboard, not a server).

So why is DDR2 still around if DDR surpassed it?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2006, 01:11:10 PM »

DDR2 is cheaper to produce than DDR1 memory.

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2006, 01:25:01 PM »

Okay, then, is DDR2 going to be the future of RAM? Will DDR be phased out? Because my family's stuck on DDR for a while (lol, all of use use it). If one plans an upgrade (later on) should one plan for DDR2?

eagl · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2006, 05:04:03 AM »

AMD is moving towards DDR2 but the DDR3 standard is well along the road towards production. DDR2 has higher overall throughput than DDR but also has higher latency. AMD's on-chip memory controller mitigates this problem to some degree, but Intel has a better cache setup so for both intel and AMD cpus, you get nearly the same overall performance between DDR and DDR2.

Here are the real facts you should use when considering an upgrade right now.

First - AGP is nearly dead, but only because the vid card makers are crippling the chips that go on AGP cards. Still, AGP is dead.

Second - the new AMD AM2 socket based systems are no faster than the socket 939 systems even though the AM2 systems use DDR2 instead of DDR. Therefore, if you already have DDR or DDR2 memory to re-use, buy whichever type you can use with your old memory. If you don't have old memory to use, it's probably a good idea to go with DDR2 because it will probably be manufacturered longer than DDR.

Third - The new Intel "conroe", aka "core 2" cpus simply crush the best AMD A64 cpus. Countering the fact that the conroe cpus aren't easy to find yet is the fact that AMD has nothing but various theoretical multi-core system designs that appear ready to take on conroe.

So my personal decision would be like this:

Simple upgrade using old memory - get AMD cpu/mobo with pci-e that uses old memory.
Simple upgrade without old memory - get AMD cpu/mobo with DDR2.

Major upgrade that I must have tomorrow - get AMD with DDR2
Major upgrade that I can wait for - wait a bit and get a conroe based intel system once the price drops a bit, unless AMD releases a chip that can match conroe.

I personally think it's worth waiting for conroe for a major system build... Right now almost every benchmark I've seen shows conroe cpus beating the latest AMD A64 FX cpus clock for clock by 10-25%. That's a huge difference.

But of course conroe cpus/mobos aren't readily available right now so you might have to wait a while.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2006, 07:06:47 AM »

DDR2 also runs significantly hotter than DDR1 or DDR3 RAM. It will be some time before DDR3 becoms the defacto standard, unfortunately. DDR3 has all the benefits of DDR1 (low latency, low power consumption) with the high clock rates of DDR2.

In my opinion DDR3 will be the first major RAM standard upgrade since DDR1.

Like eagl said, AGP is dead. It would not be wise to put any money into it now. PCI-E is herer to stay.

Also, like eagl said, if you are considering building a new system, you really should try to wait until the Intel Conroe is available. The time Conroe is to be available has not officially been announced by Intel. Some think it will be as early as next month, others think it might be as late as September.

I think it may be somewhere inbetween. Intel has announced retail prices for Conroe already. Here they are:

CPU Price
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4M) $999
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73GHz/2Mx2) $999
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.67GHz/4M) $530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz/4M) $316
Intel Pentium D 960 (3.60GHz/2Mx2) $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz/2M) $224
Intel Pentium D 950 (3.40GHz/2Mx2) $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz/2M) $183
Intel Pentium D 940 (3.20GHz/2Mx2) $183
Intel Pentium D 930 (3.00GHz/2Mx2) $178
Intel Pentium D 920 (2.80GHz/2Mx2) $178
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.80GHz/1Mx2) $133
Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz/1Mx2) $93

Those are retail prices. The 'D' is the current dual CPU offering . Core 2 is Conroe. One of the things that has everyone excited is the siginificantly lower heat Conroe spews, as well as the over-clocking ability. I have seen tests showing a 2.4GHz Conroe clocking up to 3.8Ghz on air cooling.

So how pathetic is the Prescott based Intel dual CPU chip? The 3.2Ghz Intel 'D' CPU is slightly slower and runs three times hotter than the 1.86Ghz Conroe Core 2.

EDIT: For the sake of comparisons. The "Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4M)" handily slaps down an "AMD FX-62 Athlon (2.8Ghz)".

eagl · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2006, 07:28:52 AM »

If I had a socket 939 system with an AGP card, I think I'd probably try to milk it for at least one more cpu generation to get established.

Oh wait, that IS the system I have.

Seriously, someone with a socket 939 AGP system and looking for some more speed is probably best off nursing that as long as possible. There are still very fast socket 939 cpus out there, and the last set of AGP cards from both nvidia and ATI are *almost* as fast as the top-end pci-e cards.

So you can nurse a socket 939 AGP system a bit longer without jumping to pci-e. Just don't buy the most expensive ANYTHING for it. Look for that good price/performance point if you need an upgrade, and hover there until you toss everything for a complete system upgrade.

I figure my AGP socket 939 system is good well past Vista launch, because I'm willing to bet that Nvidia and ATI will release vista drivers for their AGP cards and might even release a DX10 part for AGP. The basic system will be "fast enough" for another couple of years, so all it needs is a DX10 and vista compliant vid card to last for a while.

But I'm sure as heck not going to drop big bucks into it, and nobody should buy an AGP mobo at this point unless you can get the performance you want REALLY cheap.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2006, 09:08:42 AM »

Uhmm,..FYI...ATI and NVidia have both commented that the DX10 cards will use power in the range of 130W to 300W. Just thought I would share that one.

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2006, 10:41:27 AM »

The card alone will use that much?!?

Will they be redesigning PSUs to support this??

On the Conroe chip: bit-tech.net says the claim is that it can run 40% less power and compute 40% faster than its leading competition. They did some measuring and found it was about 42% less Watts used than its predecessor.

Apparently if you like games, conroe is the way to go. Rather amazing benchmarks. It is anywhere from 70% to 30% faster in almost all categories (except multi-tasking)

EDIT: I wonder what socket conroe will be in?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2006, 10:51:49 AM »

Does not matter what socket they use, it will not be compatible with any current motherboard. However, it is will be LGA-775, like current Intel CPU's.

And yes, those power consumption requirements are for the video card alone.

Think dual power supplies. Oh yes, Vista is good thing. Uh-huh. Sure. Especially if you live near the Artic circle. No need for external heating. WOOT!

Krusty · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2006, 11:01:13 AM »

Skuzzy, you forgot! The ice!

Moisture = BAD!

EDIT: Why don't they just scrap the GPU entirely and rig 2 computers together, one acting solely as the video card, the other solely as the CPU? LOL

That's the way it's going, I bet.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2006, 11:11:16 AM »

Cost too much for the OEM to make that type of setup. Better to use the fans in the computer to drive generators to power some of the peripherals.

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2006, 11:21:16 AM »

lmao!

I think to do that you'd need the fans to produce more power than they consume.... Pretty nifty trick, seeing as people have been trying to build perpetual motion machines for decades

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2006, 12:43:04 PM »

Oh, the generators could not produce as much as the fans draw, but given the number of fans in the new systems, the generators could put out enough power to light your LED on the front panel.

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2006, 12:48:04 PM »

LOL, but whattabout the other 300W needed for the 3d card?!?

Hapmster in a wheel is out, the fur would clog the fans!

Maybe a naked mole rat on a wheel?

Kev367th · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2006, 08:00:00 PM »

Should be interesting next year when I do my upgrade, will be new mobo, cpu, memory, vid card.

Two choices -

1) Conroe
2) AMD AM2 on the "Torrenza" (basically 2 dual cores on same mobo using non EEC memory).

So Skuzzy I have a question-
a) Multithreaded games - will take advantage of all cores/cpus avaialable?

If so I 'may' go the "Torrenza" route and get two cheaper X2's. Benchies show Conroe is great for single threaded games, but starts to choke (shared bus) on multithread games/apps.

Added advantage "Torrenza" is also compatible with new K8L's (4-core) due Q1 2007.
Also AMD is licensing the HT technology and it will possible to use the second CPU socket for GPU's, co-pros etc, instead of 2nd CPU.

Really good news - Both AMD and Intel have announced price-cuts

.