RDRAM Won't Die

...or will it?

i'd like to see performance from SiS's new RDRAM mobo before we can safely say RDRAM is dead and buried. http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=04&seq=16

At present, the RDRAM platform is limited mostly to the high-end market, and with Intel showing stronger support for the DDR platform, the market share of RDRAM-based chipsets has dropped from 15% in 2001 to the current 10%.

However, SiS believes that the RDRAM standard still has a chance to enter the mainstream sector, especially as DRAM makers like Samsung Electronics and Elpida have decided to manufacture new-generation, dual-channel RDRAM products. The chipset designer estimates that if introduction of the new memories proceeds well, it is likely to take up 30% of the RDRAM-platform market by the end of 2003.

interesting, i thought RDRAM had more market share for P4 platforms than that. the majority is probably held by worthless SDRAM P4 solutions

[Gator]

that is interesting, I was sure that RDRAM was history because most people I know went for DDR over RDRAM. Additionally large PC makers like Dell offer DDR on their systems, and with the tremendous price difference and DDRII coming out... WOW! Very interesting information, they ain't gonna make it for AMD too are they?!

[PCarr78]

RDRAM came in with all the right intentions

The price is just too prohibitive

[Brimstone]

At first the price was way to high with no performance advantage.

[-=DVS=-]

Well Rdram is not so expensive these days anymore so yes it will live untill Intel keeps useing it

[Starscream]

I personally refuse to buy rd ram on principle alone. Rambust's business practice of suing everyone is horrible.

[TheOneKEA]

RDRAM costs too much. When it's as cheap as DDR and can keep pace with DDR (I think DDR400 edges out over PC1066 RDRAM) then maybe I'll buy it.

I also won't buy it because VIA hasn't made an Athlon chipset with RDRAM support

[SavagePaladin]

Intel used to sue everyone too as I recall....
seems to have quieted down though

Originally posted by TheOneKEA
RDRAM costs too much. When it's as cheap as DDR and can keep pace with DDR (I think DDR400 edges out over PC1066 RDRAM) then maybe I'll buy it.

I also won't buy it because VIA hasn't made an Athlon chipset with RDRAM support

a more accurate statement would be that PC1066 edges out DDR400

[TheOneKEA]

Whoops. I thought it was the other way around.

Anyway, RDRAM is still too expensive.

[Lars]

Well, I bought my Samsung PC800 ram along with my Abit TH7-II almost a year ago. Back then it was either sd or rd for the P4, so the choice was obvious IMO. Well, they overclock like 40%+ easy with no voltage increase or any h/w mods what-so-ever. A year later they still kick major a**. Even the most expensive/extravagant DDR modules (might I add: some of which are now costing more than I paid for my RDRAM) are still playing catch up even when overclocked to the max. While RDRAM may not be "all that" in the future, they sure have been one of the better investments I ever made (PC wise that is), and are a great match for my 2.26@3034 Mhz. This system will last me at least another 6 months and still be high-end by then (may upgrade the cpu one more time). I'm not even getting a new mobo/ram until at least Prescott comes out. Then, if it turns out dual DDR kicks the snot out of rdram, I'll go DDR. But I will have to see that before I believe it

actually as of right now, RDRAM is more expensive than the elusive DDR400 i believe.

one of the reasons RDRAM was the only solution for P4 is because Intel itself could not release a DDR mobo due to legal reasons