Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: stevenw9 on 2006-10-08 01:42:54
-
It's official, RAM has broken into the GHZ wars! For all you overclockers, this is a must see!
DDR2 1,000MHz - http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=26794 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=26794)
DDR2 1,066MHz - http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30976 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30976)
DDR2 1,250Mhz - http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32276 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32276)
DDR2 1,333MHz - http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34375 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34375)
*XDR DRam 4,800Mhz (HOLY CRAP!) - http://www.stargeek.com/item/306998.html (http://www.stargeek.com/item/306998.html)
* - Xtreme Data Rate
Notes: DDR3 will be hitting us between 2007-2008, I wonder what THOSE speeds will be like ^.^. XDR DRam is projected to hit 8,000MHz by 2000? (Not sure where in between 2006-2009 it will be). WTF kind of motherboards will support those monsters!?
Note 2: The most common ram i've seen is DDR-SDram 333 (mhz)
-
I believe you mean:
"h0li shitx0rx!"
I love my quirks :P
-
1T 15 C R /\ -\_ Y!!!!!
-------------------------------
IT IS CRAZY!!!!!
lol, I just felt like saying something in some retarded language. :P Intel is still getting better with their 80-core technology though... mobos are going to start needing to push 200 volts or more through itself for that monster. o.o
-
You suck at leet.
-
Well i'm not one who studys 1337 just to act all UB3R on a computer. >_> I'd rather look at awsome projects like Q-Gears :P
-
U R /V0+ 133+. U 5UX. D0 /V0+ @++3/v\P+ T0 X0PY /v\Y X3YB04rD Xu/V9-Fu 0r I 5h411 b 4'3d 2 PWNd U..
Kids.. :mrgreen:
-
The problem with having ram that fast is...
The rest of the system is too slow to make use of it.
Which is the same for many graphics cards - they are simply too fast and the rest of the system causes bottlenecks.
In the old days it used to be limitations in the IDE channels, AGP bus and of course the bandwidth between the CPU and the Northbridge (although AMD with their built in DDR Ram controller in their CPUs helps to minimise that issue).
Now with your Quad pumped buses and your PCI Express x16 and your Hyper Transport bla bla, the fact of the matter is that the main core of a PC - The Motherboard and all its IC is going to be outdated in less then a year when the Intel Core Quads and the AMDx4's start to emerge and the next Geforce and ATi cards come out.
Just a shame there are some sectors of the market that outgrow all the others in a space of a couple of product cycles.
-
Jesus though, my processor is dwarfed by the 4Ghz...
[offtopic="Also, the Spell-checker doesn't work on the PSP, any fix?"]
-
My PC 5300 hits 1 Ghz :-)
And my processor is 70% overclocked.
Intel E6300 @ 3.15 Ghz (7x450), I turned it down from 7x500 because of heat issues.
-
The problem with having ram that fast is...
The rest of the system is too slow to make use of it.
Which is the same for many graphics cards - they are simply too fast and the rest of the system causes bottlenecks.
In the old days it used to be limitations in the IDE channels, AGP bus and of course the bandwidth between the CPU and the Northbridge (although AMD with their built in DDR Ram controller in their CPUs helps to minimise that issue).
Now with your Quad pumped buses and your PCI Express x16 and your Hyper Transport bla bla, the fact of the matter is that the main core of a PC - The Motherboard and all its IC is going to be outdated in less then a year when the Intel Core Quads and the AMDx4's start to emerge and the next Geforce and ATi cards come out.
Just a shame there are some sectors of the market that outgrow all the others in a space of a couple of product cycles.
Yeah, this makes buying a new PC harder and harder, I wanted to upgrade my machine to a 775 a year ago but then they started about the new dual core stuff etc.. so I decided to wait and now I'm finally getting one (after a year of having a really outdated system).
-
Just wait till that Intel 80-core is no longer a prototype >_> HOPEFULY we get increased bus speeds with that!
-
As a matter of fact, chips (CPU,GPU,and RAM) are now so fast that the MOST limiting factor in modern systems is the trace pathways and connectors on the motherboards. Old traces used to be cheap tin-copper mixes that were pretty wide (about 1/32nd of an inch). But since most chips speed (back then) was measured in KHz, along with the low number of total chips and connections, it worked fine. However, modern systems now use 4-5 times the amount of chips with 4 times the amount of connections between them. Even using multi-layer PCBs with micro-trace pathways using silver-doped lines (of around .4 hundredths of an inch), they simply don't have the capacity or transmission clarity (impedance-related cross-talk and quantum-tunneling effects) to 'speed up' much more without risking data errors and signal degradation.
Manufacturers have spent the last 5-7 years looking for new transmission technology to break through this. IBM in particular, has been researching into 'optical boards' that would use fiber optic transmission between chips that would allow speeds 100 times faster than what is presently available now, using less energy and with greater signal distance and fidelity. The trick has been creating 'mini-lasers' on chips to send signals, and the receptors to read them. IBM announced that they have come up with a solution that they are currently testing, and hope to have available for wide-spread commercial use in 2-3 years.
-
The problem with having ram that fast is...
The rest of the system is too slow to make use of it.
Which is the same for many graphics cards - they are simply too fast and the rest of the system causes bottlenecks.
In the old days it used to be limitations in the IDE channels, AGP bus and of course the bandwidth between the CPU and the Northbridge (although AMD with their built in DDR Ram controller in their CPUs helps to minimise that issue).
Now with your Quad pumped buses and your PCI Express x16 and your Hyper Transport bla bla, the fact of the matter is that the main core of a PC - The Motherboard and all its IC is going to be outdated in less then a year when the Intel Core Quads and the AMDx4's start to emerge and the next Geforce and ATi cards come out.
Just a shame there are some sectors of the market that outgrow all the others in a space of a couple of product cycles.
Yeah, this makes buying a new PC harder and harder, I wanted to upgrade my machine to a 775 a year ago but then they started about the new dual core stuff etc.. so I decided to wait and now I'm finally getting one (after a year of having a really outdated system).
I know the feeling, I still am on a 3GHz P4 on the old Socket type (pin type 478 or something) and was going to upgrade to a 775 but then I would need a PCI express GPU and DDR2 ram and possibly a new power supply and..
The cost keeps running up. With the new Dual cores out, I may be tempted to wait till the Quad cores are out before I make a purchase - hopefully the lower spec Dual Cores will drop in price some more.
You really are looking at a dead end scenario and are looking at shelling out like £400 just to upgrade from my position.
Not sure if I need to upgrade, only thing that runs slow on my machine are games and video encoding - I rarely do either.
-
Yeah, BUT, I'm kind of in a different Position :P
Specs:
P3 1,2 GHz 2x
Agp NVidia FX5200
and only 512 of SD 133 ram :P
So i really really need an upgrade, only the new technology comes faster then i can decide to upgrade =/
-
My god :-o you really need an upgrade, especially your graphics card and CPU, 512 ram is... alright I guess, but you definately need a new CPU + GPU.
Although saying that, I'm giving my old FX to a friend who's still on an MX, now that's bad. :-P
-
Hey Rhys,
You underestimate the power of the Pentium 2 and 3.
You have to remember that the NetBurst architechture of the Pentium 4 was flawed from the start and was only out for so long because the long execution pipelines allowed Intel to give higher speeds to the CPUs to compensate for the bad design and hense stay ahead of AMD in the speed wars.
The P3 Mobile chip was around for a long time, and the Pentium Mobile and the Intel Core Duo/Solo are based on this older architecture.
Because speed (GHz) is not the basis for fast computer - it is about effeciency per watt and per £ :)
-
Looking to GHZ doesnt make sense at all anyway.
just look at the difference in GHZ between ADM and Intel (though this is mostly because of the memory controller in the cpu itself in amd)
-
Hey Rhys,
You underestimate the power of the Pentium 2 and 3.
You have to remember that the NetBurst architechture of the Pentium 4 was flawed from the start and was only out for so long because the long execution pipelines allowed Intel to give higher speeds to the CPUs to compensate for the bad design and hense stay ahead of AMD in the speed wars.
The P3 Mobile chip was around for a long time, and the Pentium Mobile and the Intel Core Duo/Solo are based on this older architecture.
Because speed (GHz) is not the basis for fast computer - it is about effeciency per watt and per £
That's true, don't underestimate the earlier Pentiums. I remember when the first socket 423 P4s came out they had worse benchmarking scores then the Pentium 3s. That was a pretty embarrassing launch for Intel to say the least.
Looking to GHZ doesnt make sense at all anyway.
just look at the difference in GHZ between ADM and Intel (though this is mostly because of the memory controller in the cpu itself in amd)
You're right, the GHz war doesn't make sense...to smart people. For the computer illiterate, they like hearing they purchased a Pentium 1000 with 500 Gigflops per cross-cycle optimization with their hard earned money. High horse-power, large buzz words is what sells. Obviously for those that are in the know, its better to have a lower clocked, energy efficent, multi-core machine. Ask an average consumer today if they would want a Pentium 4 3.6GHz CPU or a Core 2 Duo 2.93GHz. Nine out of ten times they'll go for the Pentium 4 3.6GHz over the Core 2 2.93GHz.
I'm very satisfied with the way the clock speeds have come down as well as the power consumption. I only hope that GPUs will soon follow the trend. I really don't want to splurge on a 1 kilowatt PSU on my next PC. Energy rates in my area went up 72% from last year, I could just imagine the bill...or the horror. :-D
-
Hey Rhys,
You underestimate the power of the Pentium 2 and 3.
You have to remember that the NetBurst architechture of the Pentium 4 was flawed from the start and was only out for so long because the long execution pipelines allowed Intel to give higher speeds to the CPUs to compensate for the bad design and hense stay ahead of AMD in the speed wars.
The P3 Mobile chip was around for a long time, and the Pentium Mobile and the Intel Core Duo/Solo are based on this older architecture.
Because speed (GHz) is not the basis for fast computer - it is about effeciency per watt and per £
That's true, don't underestimate the earlier Pentiums. I remember when the first socket 423 P4s came out they had worse benchmarking scores then the Pentium 3s. That was a pretty embarrassing launch for Intel to say the least.
Socket 478?
-
No little one, before socket 478 there was a socket 423... :roll:
-
No little one, before socket 478 there was a socket 423... :roll:
Old-Skool :mrgreen:
Never knew about that one, thought 370 (Pentium 3 coppermine etc..) came before 478 :P
-
I am at the moment, riding a nice train, an e6600 @ 3.6GHZ 9*400 Air cooled, x1900xtx, 2gb DDR2 OCZ 6400 (800mhz).
It's pretty fast compared to my old,socket 478 P4 2.4GHZ @ 3.0 1024mb DDR1 Pc2700 and x850xt PE.
The "Core Duo 2" is actual a mixed Pentium 2-3-4 bringin the best parts form all of them.
back to topic
XDR ram is quite slow compared to the MHZ (latancy is poor).
Intel are trying to make the best out of XDR, but they are moving more and more over to DDR3
-
Isnt XDR from Rambus? If it is I know Intel will have a hard time shifting that.
I just realised that the Core 2 Duo isnt 64Bit!
It seems only the laptop (Memron) version is 64Bit compatible. I will definatly wait for a 64bit Core 2 duo before I take the plunge
After all I want to be future proof..
-
This one is, at least that's what this site says:
http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/details.html?artno=HPGI51&showTechData=true
i know it's dutch but if you look at "Instructions" it clearly states EM64T..
sooo, is this site wrong?
[EDIT]
CPU-Z also mentions it at this (mega-overclocked) conroe proc.
http://tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1160952453.gif
-
I tell you I am getting confused, Im sure I read conflicting reviews yesterday about the 64bit ability of Conroe (at least on the E6300).
I think I need a trip to intel's website...
-
Core Duo (yonah) aren't 64bit combitable, but Core 2 Duo, is combitable
it's not quite 64bit thou, but it is "emulated". There will be "Real" 64 bit when they er shifting core arcitecture, (neahalem)
Also it's no performance loss with that "emulated" type off 64bit!
-
Isnt XDR from Rambus? If it is I know Intel will have a hard time shifting that.
Which is bit of a shame, RDRAM was decent enough memory, just very expensive.
(Sorry for the short post, we are troubleshooting a privilege issue...)
-
Core Duo (yonah) aren't 64bit combitable, but Core 2 Duo, is combitable
it's not quite 64bit thou, but it is "emulated". There will be "Real" 64 bit when they er shifting core arcitecture, (neahalem)
Also it's no performance loss with that "emulated" type off 64bit!
It's mainly there so people who want to run a 64bit app, they can.
Desktop procs arent something to do real 64bit things on anyway.
-
Desktop procs arent something to do real 64bit things on anyway.
You sure are right, not now at least. Developers needs to implantate, Multi-Threading and 64bit support to their programms (games, apps, etc.)
-
Chaos..
Bill Gates in 1985 said he didn't see desktop PCs ever needing more than 640 KB of memory. In 1989, Computer Gaming World (CGW) announced that Video Expansion Cards were "expensive, ineffective, and doubtlessly a doomed technology". Everytime somebody predicts that PCs will "never need/do" something, they're almost invariably wrong. Right now a top of the line PC can actually outperform (per clock cycle) a Cray YMP/2 supercomputer from 1990.
All the Core 2 Duo's actually use 2 X 64-bit ALUs per core. This allows EACH core to perform one 128 bit calc per clock. However, they still use 32bit instructions and addressing.
-
Chaos..
Bill Gates in 1985 said he didn't see desktop PCs ever needing more than 640 KB of memory. In 1989, Computer Gaming World (CGW) announced that Video Expansion Cards were "expensive, ineffective, and doubtlessly a doomed technology". Everytime somebody predicts that PCs will "never need/do" something, they're almost invariably wrong. Right now a top of the line PC can actually outperform (per clock cycle) a Cray YMP/2 supercomputer from 1990.
All the Core 2 Duo's actually use 2 X 64-bit ALUs per core. This allows EACH core to perform one 128 bit calc per clock. However, they still use 32bit instructions and addressing.
You have a point but those days they didn't really need the technology of it at all.
I'm just saying if you want to do extreme multi-threaded 64bit apps you should by a blade server or something thats made for the job, not some wanky desktop proc. (though it does its job for WinXP 64...at least the AMD procs do, the intel has major performance drrops because of the emulated 64bit implementation.)