PDA

View Full Version : The Return Of Rambus : SiS R659


LiquidX
12-27-03, 10:44 AM
I may be going back to the dark, expensive side. I still feel Rambus is the best memory even though I moved on to DDR...atleast PC800 which I still have in a Dell 8200. I might hold off on selling it after seeing this today. It seems SiS is bringing a new mobo capable of handling P4's with 800MHZ FSB. Crap this is one of the main reasons I upgraded and now wish I didnt just pay $200 for a Asus 875. By all accounts this thing even with my PC800 along with my 800Mhz FSB 2.8 should blow out my current settup with dual channel DDR-400. Crap I could have saved $400.:(

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=sis659tp&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

http://www.gamepc.com/images/labs/rev-sis659tp-cache.jpg

New Asus P4S13G based on the SiS659
http://www.gamepc.com/images/labs/rev-sis659tp-p4s13g.jpg

The Baron
12-27-03, 11:36 AM
Probably going to never hit retail because of how expensive Rambus is in the first place. Every board manufacturer knows that they can't sell that board if 512 megs of RAM costs twice as much as the board itself, so it'll probably just be another one of those disappearing Sis chipsets.

|JuiceZ|
12-27-03, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
Probably going to never hit retail because of how expensive Rambus is in the first place. Every board manufacturer knows that they can't sell that board if 512 megs of RAM costs twice as much as the board itself, so it'll probably just be another one of those disappearing Sis chipsets.

Besides that we all know DDR2 will be the next standard regardless. Nice try SiS.

Dazz
12-27-03, 03:35 PM
Down with Rambus!! Down with Rambus!! Down with Rambus!! rant continues.

LiquidX
12-27-03, 04:15 PM
See you guys never got the pleasure of trying Rambus. This thing is blazing. It took DDR almost a full year to match it in performance and still not by a significant margin....and only when the 800FSB P4's showed up.

And with this new 1200 Rambus I cant help but to think the same thing will happen even when DDRII shows up. Rambus if it wasnt so damn expensive would be the gamers and designers choice I think. You just do not get into any memory problems. I went with DDR only because I would save in the long run but if I had the money it would be all Rambus. :cool:

And BTW only Asus, they say will be making this board. I cant wait, I may hold on to my PC800 just too see how it performs with my 2.8 800FSB on this thing if the price is right.;)

Dazz
12-27-03, 04:21 PM
I just hate Rambus as a evil company that likes to sue to get money.

StealthHawk
12-27-03, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by LiquidX
See you guys never got the pleasure of trying Rambus. This thing is blazing. It took DDR almost a full year to match it in performance and still not by a significant margin....and only when the 800FSB P4's showed up.

The only reason it took so long for DDR to catch up was because it took so damn long for Intel to get DDR platforms out. And that was because they had a deal with Rambus not to make any non-RDRAM platforms. The P4 was using dual channel RDRAM for a very, very long time before it used dual channel DDR.

I don't think RDRAM is going to come back. It's just too expensive for a small performance benefit.

Viral
12-27-03, 10:04 PM
All that DDR needed to match RD back in it's 'reign' was DC PC2100.. The only problem, as said, is that intel had a deal with rambus to not support any non rambus solutions that provided bandwidth over 1GB/s.

So really, all it took DDR to beat dual 16-bit PC1066 or 32bit RIMM4200 was DC DDR333. However no platform supported DC DDR333 until recently.

For a high end solution this does look fairly tempting i suppose, but without intel's backing, it won't go anywhere (not that rambus went far with intels backing:rolleyes: )

Oh, and how can this surpass a P4 with DC DDR400 with only PC800? PC800 is still 16-bit is it not? or does this somehow find a way to adress it as 32bit? even then, that only makes it equal to DC DDR400, then latency is all that matters. Sure this diagram shows lower latency, but rambus have made many claims like this to do with latency in the past.

So i'm now guessing this is quad channel with only two sticks? that seems nice.. but are you sure this doesn't require 32-bit RD modules? or does it really address one 16-bit one as two 16-bit... somehow :confused:

LiquidX
12-27-03, 11:19 PM
Rambus PC1200 will have to be used in pairs and it will be 32-bit, also they do have 32-bit PC800 (see ahead of it's time).;) Regarding latency there will be a chip on the mobo they say that will make up for this...how was not very clear to me. From reading I get the idea the main intent of this SiS 659 is for the future just like AMD took the plunge and went 64-bit for its CPU. And I can see intel jumping back on Rambus if that extra bandwidth trumps the performance of there next chip. This is future proof mobo by all accounts.

Also I was kind of amazed to find a article that states current DDR when put into the same set up as PC800 (say a 2.53 533 FSB system) does not perform any better if any and infact PC1066 beats it. One can only wonder what Rdram will do with intels 800mhz FSB. DDR has not really showed up Rambus at all with this but I think Rambus will show up DDR.....again. Atleast I am hoping so I can keep my PC800.:D

StealthHawk
12-28-03, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by LiquidX
Also I was kind of amazed to find a article that states current DDR when put into the same set up as PC800 (say a 2.53 533 FSB system) does not perform any better if any and infact PC1066 beats it. One can only wonder what Rdram will do with intels 800mhz FSB. DDR has not really showed up Rambus at all with this but I think Rambus will show up DDR.....again. Atleast I am hoping so I can keep my PC800.:D

I have a very hard time believing that. Single channel DDR333 was enough to more or less match performance with dual channel PC800 RDRAM despite the DDR solution not having as much memory throughput. And you have to consider that dual channel DDR200(yes, that is DDR200 and not DDR400) has the same bandwidth as dual channel PC800 RDRAM.

I'm not sure what configuration this PC1200 RDRAM will be used in. Is it still dual channel? Or is it going to be quad channel? If it is dual channel then it has +50% bandwidth over PC800. But then you have to consider 800FSB P4s use dual channel DDR400 which is +100% of the bandwidth of dual channel DDR200(which is the same as dual channel PC800 RDRAM).

You can see a comparison of dual channel DDR333 and PC1066 RDRAM here (http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030414/i875p-19.html)

PC1066 RDRAM has results listed under 3066/133/2X533 while DDR333 has results listed under 3066/133/2X166.

PC1200 RDRAM will probably be around the same speed as DDR400. That is my guess. Only it will be a lot more expensive.

Gator
12-29-03, 08:11 AM
the return of expensive RDRAM? Teh Noes!!! :eek: :p

Isn't dual channel DDR400 or faster enough to compete with RDRAM anyway these days?

Dazz
12-29-03, 09:45 AM
PC1200 16bit x 2 or 32bit = 6.4GB/sec bandwith with high latency
PC3200 64bit x 2 (dual channel) = 6.4GB/sec bandwith but with far lower latency

Viral
12-29-03, 09:35 PM
Yes but the diagram seems to imply something else.. i'm not sure but it looks like it is adressing each stick as 32-bit. Thats 64-bit all up, making it equivelant to DDR1200.

1200*8bytes=9.6GB/s

Still wouldn't matter to me.. and i really cant determine what that diagram is trying to show:confused:

StealthHawk
12-30-03, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Dazz
PC1200 16bit x 2 or 32bit = 6.4GB/sec bandwith with high latency
PC3200 64bit x 2 (dual channel) = 6.4GB/sec bandwith but with far lower latency

Your calculations are wrong.

PC1200 RDRAM has a bandwidth of 4.8 GB/sec.

DDR400(PC3200) dual channel has a bandwidth of 6.4 GB/sec.

As Viral says, if two 32bit PC1200 sticks are addressed at the same time the bandwidth should be 9.6 GB/sec. Which seems rather pointless since the P4 can only use 6.4 GB/sec anyway. It will become a battle of latency then.

Dazz
12-30-03, 05:53 AM
Must of pressed a wrong key somewhere along there.

PsychoSy
12-30-03, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by |JuiceZ|
Besides that we all know DDR2 will be the next standard regardless. Nice try SiS.

Tru Dat! :afro:

See you guys never got the pleasure of trying Rambus. This thing is blazing ...

In and of itself, yes, it's blazing fast. But it's blazing speed and efficiency was made redundant by the P4 architecture. The AMD Athlon's architecture in comparison allowed it do much more data processing per clock cycle without requiring twice clockspeed or twice the FSB, as opposed to Intel. This made AMD's Athlon a more efficient processor than Intel's P4 and it was considerably cheaper.

Rambus's design was geared more towards efficiency first as opposed to raw brute speed, just like the AMD Athlon. If there was ever an Athlon + RDRAM solution, that marriage would've changed everything. But the Rambus/Intel marriage was doomed - you don't mix an efficient RAM solution with an inefficient processor and then turn around expecting people to plunk down twice the costs for both ... just because Intel's name is smeared on it! The only motive for doing so is to adopt a business model based on fooling people ... and that's exactly what they were banking on - foolish consumers thinking "Intel is better", no matter what the cost or the benchmarks say.

In the end, they only managed to fool a handful of people. The smart people ran all the way to AMD + DDR and haven't bothered to look back until just a few short months ago when the 3 Ghz P4, coupled with DDR, was finally able to surpass the AthlonXP.

Rambus is dead.

Let's keep it buried.

Dazz
12-30-03, 11:43 AM
You got it mixed up.

Intel is brute force Highest possible speed in Mhz while
AMD is efficient in that it can do more work done at less Mhz

Rambus is brute force also highest Mhz possible with horrible latency (40-20 ns)
DDR is efficient with it's MHz and has low latency (7-3.5 ns).

If you ask me they both picked right

PsychoSy
12-31-03, 12:57 PM
Gah ...

Man, now I know I'm burned out on anything tech related ...

Dazz
12-31-03, 01:17 PM
DDR2 is said to have horrible latency also :(

stncttr908
12-31-03, 04:57 PM
RAMBUS. Yawn. :o

Malfunction
12-31-03, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
DDR2 is said to have horrible latency also :(

Yep, that is what I read as well. So, maybe... I dunno.. it could be possible. Though Rambus would have to be priced as well as DDR II if it is to offer any sort of competition. The speed is there, I read somewhere that they have the ability to out perform DDR (bandwidth and scalability wise), though will it out perform DDR II?

It should be interesting, though I wouldn't count on it. Don't believe anyone but consoles are willing to risk going with a DDR II solution to solve their problems.

Peace,

:afro: