SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Meuleman Nic » Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:34:58



hello,

i'm a lightwave user and i'm planning of upgrading my pc to a 1500mhz
(pentium or athlon) t'ill this summer and my question is what memory should
i install?Should the bottleneck of the sdram not to be to big for such a
proccesor,i know that the sdram is ver cheap at this time but if i upgrade
the whole thing i want to do it good and i mean very good!I heard that the
bottleneck of sd-ram is 4 times greater than ddr-ram.
I hope some of you guys can give me some good advise.

Thanks,

Nick


 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by no spam_arthurray200 » Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:18:53


  Hi Nick,
  If you are waiting until the summer to upgrade, you'll probably end up
going with DDR, because by then it will be a standard.  I predict that
90% of MBs will use it.

AR

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by jin choun » Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:11:43


unfortunately, it's not a good time to upgrade right now.  everything is in
too much flux.

first it was rdram getting shoved down our throats, then ddr finally burst
through the gates and now there are rumors of quad data rate ram... not to
mention 100mhz, 133mhz, and 150mhz dimms....

and most of the mobo chipsets are rather immature.... the last mature
chipset was the fantastic 440bx... but it's hopelessly outdated now.  i
currently have a via apollo pro 133a (asus p3v4x) and it has its share of
compatability issues and problems.

if you must upgrade, wait until a really mature ddr board pops up.  if you
can wait, it may be worth it to go with a mature QDR ram chipset.

also, compare prices for amd vs intel... especially for the latest and
greatest processors.  it's very very compelling to go with amd.  and it goes
unsaid that there is virtually no performance sacrifice.

jin

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Berge » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:21:53


Slightly off topic but still related:  I read that the P4 has a slight design
flaw compared to an AMD with similar specs.  It turns out that the floating
point processor that handles non-integer values is rather lacking in the P4 but
the integer calculations are well up there.  This has been (to my knowledge) the
explination for why 1 GHZ AMD chips outperform (by a good percentage) 1.5 GHZ
P4's in certain benchmarks but the P4 catches up in others.

Any one want to confirm/deny this?

Berger


> unfortunately, it's not a good time to upgrade right now.  everything is in
> too much flux.

> first it was rdram getting shoved down our throats, then ddr finally burst
> through the gates and now there are rumors of quad data rate ram... not to
> mention 100mhz, 133mhz, and 150mhz dimms....

> and most of the mobo chipsets are rather immature.... the last mature
> chipset was the fantastic 440bx... but it's hopelessly outdated now.  i
> currently have a via apollo pro 133a (asus p3v4x) and it has its share of
> compatability issues and problems.

> if you must upgrade, wait until a really mature ddr board pops up.  if you
> can wait, it may be worth it to go with a mature QDR ram chipset.

> also, compare prices for amd vs intel... especially for the latest and
> greatest processors.  it's very very compelling to go with amd.  and it goes
> unsaid that there is virtually no performance sacrifice.

> jin

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Jeff Kilgro » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:08:30



Quote:> Slightly off topic but still related:  I read that the P4 has a slight
design
> flaw compared to an AMD with similar specs.  It turns out that the
floating
> point processor that handles non-integer values is rather lacking in the
P4 but
> the integer calculations are well up there.  This has been (to my
knowledge) the
> explination for why 1 GHZ AMD chips outperform (by a good percentage) 1.5
GHZ
> P4's in certain benchmarks but the P4 catches up in others.

The P4 is a strange beast...  Most current benchmarks will show that the P4
doesn't lag behind an Athlon or at least not by much and software that is
optimized for it really shows a serious increase in speed.  The catch right
now is there aren't any commercially available compilers that are optimized
for it so any optimizations have to be hard-coded through assembly language
and then the comilers have to be told not to try and optimize or produce
errors for that code.  ...And that's using hacked or re-written compiler
cores that can generate some of the new instructions.

What's cool about the P4 is that externally it currently runs on a 100MHz
bus, but uses a quad data rate method to achieve 400MHz capability.
Internally, the chip has the ability to run the ALU at *DOUBLE* the CPU
internal clock, so on a 1.5GHz P4, the ALU runs at 3GHz!  Unfortunately, the
FPU is still set at the standard internal clock and to compilers not
optimized for the P4, it appears the same as the FPU in the P3.  Going back
to the 3GHz ALU, it's nice, but Intel didn't increase the width of the cache
interface from the P3, so there can be a bottleneck there with the speed
difference.  Also, the compiler issue strikes again here in that unless a
compiler knows about the new ALU scheduling and how and when it can feed and
pull data into the integer pipeline, the thing just sits there spinning its
wheels and in some cases with unoptimized software, it can even run slower
than a similarly clocked P3.  Future revisions of the P4 should see a double
clocked FPU inside as well as a wider cache interface.  We'll also see QDR
on the 133MHz FSB with the next revision for an effective 533MHz FSB.

Intel did a lot of cool things with the P4, but it's up to the rest of the
world to support these new features and so far it's not happening...  But
this is also the biggest advancement and change in the X86 architecture
since the jump to 32bit (and it's probably a bigger advancement than that)
so it will take some time.  The upcoming Mustang Athlons will have the edge
in both price and performance over the P4 until we see P4-optimized
compilers, but then the performance should shift in favor of Intel...
Although, Intel is going to need to seriously adjust their attitude as well
as their prices if they want to compete against the next wave of AMD CPUs
when we see SMP and faster copper cores among other things.

I'm kinda worried that the P4 is going to go the way of the '386.  It's a
huge advancement over the previous model, but the hardware and mostly the
software need to radically change to support it.  By the time the software
catches up with the P4, the P5 will be available and most of the world will
have passed on the P4.  ...Just like with the 386.  Some people ran out to
buy one, but then sat there while all there 16bit software still ran about
the same, or up to 2X as fast just because the 386 was clocked faster.  It
wasn't until 32bit compilers showed up and really started taking advantage
of the extra 386 instructions did anyone see an improvement, but by then the
486 was available and became the next logical jump for most PC owners from
their 286 systems.  This need for advancement combined with AMD producing
chips that will increase performance without calling for re-optimizing
compilers for a new architecture, will probably hurt Intel's hold on the
market.  Which is a good thing, competition brings faster progression of
technology.

--
- Jeff Kilgroe | Change the .nospam to .com to reply!
- Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience
- www.appliedvisual.com

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Chris O'Rile » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:29:42



Quote:

> The P4 is a strange beast...

So has anyone seen a P4 in action, say, running LightWave?  I'm nearing the
market for a new system and had been leaning towards an Athlon.  I'd
consider a P4 if the performance warranted but they seem to be pretty
scarce, so getting numbers has been difficult.

-Chris

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by DR » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:38:31


Basically, for rendering, you are better off with an Athlon (much better off
when you consider my 900mhz athlon renders faster than a P4 1.5)



> > The P4 is a strange beast...

> So has anyone seen a P4 in action, say, running LightWave?  I'm nearing
the
> market for a new system and had been leaning towards an Athlon.  I'd
> consider a P4 if the performance warranted but they seem to be pretty
> scarce, so getting numbers has been difficult.

> -Chris

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by The Taxma » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:50:52


If thats true, then AMD would be the far better bet for raytracing. I far as
I am aware, Raytracing is almost all maths, so a chip that isn't up to
scratch in the FP department would have major problems.

Dean


Quote:> Slightly off topic but still related:  I read that the P4 has a slight
design
> flaw compared to an AMD with similar specs.  It turns out that the
floating
> point processor that handles non-integer values is rather lacking in the
P4 but
> the integer calculations are well up there.  This has been (to my
knowledge) the
> explination for why 1 GHZ AMD chips outperform (by a good percentage) 1.5
GHZ
> P4's in certain benchmarks but the P4 catches up in others.

> Any one want to confirm/deny this?

> Berger

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by jin choun » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:54:56


p4s would only be better than an amd if lightwave was recompiled for the
processors special instructions.  otherwise, on a megahertz by megahertz
comparison, amd comes out ahead.

p4 is a future thinking architecture.  it can scale to higher speeds than a
p3 and it will indeed be faster once software becomes optimized for it....
but new compilers for the p4 are still a year away by most estimates and
then software makers have to actually go back and recompile.  and by that
time, the p4 that you buy now would lag behind in shear megahertz....

jin

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Jeff Kilgro » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:34:24



Quote:

> So has anyone seen a P4 in action, say, running LightWave?  I'm nearing
the
> market for a new system and had been leaning towards an Athlon.  I'd
> consider a P4 if the performance warranted but they seem to be pretty
> scarce, so getting numbers has been difficult.

I've seen a couple P4 systems in action, although not running LW.  In most
cases, they are about what one would expect from a P3 or Athlon system that
is clocked about the same....  Or at least that's what they will be until
the proper software support arrives.

Right now, as others have said in this thread, is a very bad time to
upgrade.  DDR SDRAM is available, but scarce and new CPUs and motherboards
such as the P4 and Athlon-266 are virtually nowhere to be found.

If you're serious about a new system, try to wait just a bit longer until
the 266MHz FSB Athlons are widely available and get one of the new DDR
motherboards, which so far I think the only big name brand available is the
ASUS A7M266, but I have yet to actually see one with my own eyes.

The P4 is a viable upgrade option too, but only *IF* the software you intend
to use will support it's new features...  So far nothing does other than a
few hacked together utilities to use for benchmark purposes.

--
- Jeff Kilgroe | Change the .nospam to .com to reply!
- Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience
- www.appliedvisual.com

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Chris O'Rile » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:12:31



Quote:

> If you're serious about a new system, try to wait just a bit longer until
> the 266MHz FSB Athlons are widely available and get one of the new DDR
> motherboards,

Yea, that's probably what I will do.  After pricing out components, I could
almost build a complete Athlon system for the difference between the P4  CPU
+ RDRAM and an Athlon + SDRAM.  Once there's a DDR P4 motherboard (which I
assume there will be), that'll really shave a lot of the cost off P4 system.

Thanks for everyone's input...

-Chris

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Fox » Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:52:37


The bottom line is that DDR RAM only helps when using really large data
sets.  Lightwave doesn't unless you are really using a gigantic scene!
It is a waste of time for a Lightwave only workstation being that the
bottleneck is on the computing power of the CPU not the RAM.  If you
are using this computer for other things say for instance working with
600+ DPI images in Photoshop it definitely makes a dramatic
difference.  BTW it remains to be seen if the Pentium 4 will have a DDR
chipset anytime soon, the Pentium 3 will probably have one but DDR on
one of those makes very little if any difference at all.  Right now
only the Athlon and PIV can possibly use the bandwidth to any advantage
and the PIV doesn't have a chipset coming for a while.  If you do get
an Athlon with DDR make sure you get the 133/133MHz system not the
100/133MHz.



> hello,

> i'm a lightwave user and i'm planning of upgrading my pc to a 1500mhz
> (pentium or athlon) t'ill this summer and my question is what memory
should
> i install?Should the bottleneck of the sdram not to be to big for
such a
> proccesor,i know that the sdram is ver cheap at this time but if i
upgrade
> the whole thing i want to do it good and i mean very good!I heard
that the
> bottleneck of sd-ram is 4 times greater than ddr-ram.
> I hope some of you guys can give me some good advise.

> Thanks,

> Nick



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by The Taxma » Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:14:12


I think I will take your advice about waiting. I intend to plough around
3000 UK into my system this year. You can probably tell I have caught the
3D diesease badly.

My initial choice was to s*Intel and go for an AMD, and beef up to at
least 512Mb RAM.

--
Deano


Chance is a fine thing!

remove 'nospam' to reply



> > So has anyone seen a P4 in action, say, running LightWave?  I'm nearing
> the
> > market for a new system and had been leaning towards an Athlon.  I'd
> > consider a P4 if the performance warranted but they seem to be pretty
> > scarce, so getting numbers has been difficult.

> I've seen a couple P4 systems in action, although not running LW.  In most
> cases, they are about what one would expect from a P3 or Athlon system
that
> is clocked about the same....  Or at least that's what they will be until
> the proper software support arrives.

> Right now, as others have said in this thread, is a very bad time to
> upgrade.  DDR SDRAM is available, but scarce and new CPUs and motherboards
> such as the P4 and Athlon-266 are virtually nowhere to be found.

> If you're serious about a new system, try to wait just a bit longer until
> the 266MHz FSB Athlons are widely available and get one of the new DDR
> motherboards, which so far I think the only big name brand available is
the
> ASUS A7M266, but I have yet to actually see one with my own eyes.

> The P4 is a viable upgrade option too, but only *IF* the software you
intend
> to use will support it's new features...  So far nothing does other than a
> few hacked together utilities to use for benchmark purposes.

> --
> - Jeff Kilgroe | Change the .nospam to .com to reply!
> - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience
> - www.appliedvisual.com

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Jon Carro » Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:07:02




Quote:

>p4s would only be better than an amd if lightwave was recompiled for the
>processors special instructions.  otherwise, on a megahertz by megahertz
>comparison, amd comes out ahead.

And this will pretty much never happen.  NewTek doesn't do x86
optimization for lightwave..

Quote:>p4 is a future thinking architecture.  it can scale to higher speeds than a
>p3 and it will indeed be faster once software becomes optimized for it....
>but new compilers for the p4 are still a year away by most estimates and
>then software makers have to actually go back and recompile.  and by that
>time, the p4 that you buy now would lag behind in shear megahertz....

go back and recompile if they are optimizing for that CPU..

--
-Jon Carroll

"You cannot escape your destiny..."- Obi-Wan Kenobi

 
 
 

SD-Ram or DDR-Ram?

Post by Jon Carro » Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:16:55



>The bottom line is that DDR RAM only helps when using really large data
>sets.  Lightwave doesn't unless you are really using a gigantic scene!
>It is a waste of time for a Lightwave only workstation being that the
>bottleneck is on the computing power of the CPU not the RAM.  If you
>are using this computer for other things say for instance working with
>600+ DPI images in Photoshop it definitely makes a dramatic
>difference.  BTW it remains to be seen if the Pentium 4 will have a DDR
>chipset anytime soon, the Pentium 3 will probably have one but DDR on
>one of those makes very little if any difference at all.  Right now
>only the Athlon and PIV can possibly use the bandwidth to any advantage
>and the PIV doesn't have a chipset coming for a while.  If you do get
>an Athlon with DDR make sure you get the 133/133MHz system not the
>100/133MHz.

Actually compared to most other PC applications, Lightwave IS using
large datasets... in fact, most rendering software is using large
datasets due to the use of double-precision floating point numbers and
the need to access things like a 14 meg frame buffer constantly during
rendering in order to render the frame. you can tell Lightwave drags
down memory bandwidth by the performance difference you get in
Lightwave between running it on a 400mhz P3 and a 400Mhz Celeron...
about 10%... mostly attributable to bus speed not cache.

--
-Jon Carroll

"You cannot escape your destiny..."- Obi-Wan Kenobi

 
 
 

1. DDR Ram vs SDR Ram

I'm just about to do my next upgrade.

For general Max work - which would be generally more desirable

512 meg of Cas 2.5 DDR Ram
or
768 meg of 133 SDR Ram?

Doug

--
--------------------------------------------
From the mind of Douglas Ellison
http://www.douglasellison.co.uk

ICQ:- 127619558

--------------------------------------------

2. Bouncing Ball

3. RAM Doubler on 030 (was Re: RAM doubler [how it works

4. Proposed State & Federal Regulations for the INTERNET!

5. Max RAM allocation when you have 1.5 Gb of RAM

6. how can equalize velocity in complete motion path?

7. more RAM or more video RAM for PS4?

8. How to make an icon for my program?

9. Ram Doubler/Magna Ram??

10. Strange RAM problem. Where does all the RAM go?

11. Help - Dell p4 w/1GB Ram, 80GB HDD Running Win2k + 512MB tiff Image = Not enough RAM??