18th September 2006 - 04:16 PM
QUOTE (DJ.Night+Sep 15 2006, 07:05 PM)
Well nice to know bit more about DDR3, but with all the comments its kinda confusing.
well i just want to know few things, when will it be out, any idea? i am planning to build my own computer so need all the latest technology products.
it is not far from end of 2006, as you guys mentioned early 2006 so i dont see it any where. i have researched few motherboards and none of them specify DDR3 memory only DD2. but which is best DDR, DDR2, or DDR3, i assume DDR3?
The only way they could make some of the ram compatible with each other is to make new DDR1 ram with the same pin alignments as DDR2 and DDR3 respectivly. That said there would be mass confusion since those sticks would not be compatible with the huge array of customers sill using ddr1 ( I am for that matter).
Next, DDR2 is really...for lack or better terms crappy. Personally I am going to skip the DDR2 era and wait for DDR3. I know people need to have the lastest and greatest but for the money right now AMD systems running socket 939 are a really good way to go. Even though the prices for there AM2 socket which supports DDR2 is maybe 5% more (and thats at maximum I think) you can opt to go that route as well. Since I read somewere that AMD said you can use DDR2-1066! Which just about matches there fsb of 1600-2000.
Then lastly if DDR3 performs like its suppose to then obviously go with that and I am sure that when that comes put DDR1 prices will drop like a rock. But if your content on using Intel go with Core 2 Duo...the Conroe chips are creaming fast and match it with the highest DDR2 chips you can find (fsb wise). But usually I like to make sure I can upgrade a lot of things on my motherboard. For instance I am running a single core processor but can easily upgrade to a dual core. Also dual channel ram and Sata 2 is nice to have.
Sorry for the rambling but computers change way too often to have to have the lastest and greatest. Stick with what you need for pretty much a 3-5 yr stand.
27th September 2006 - 03:01 PM
GDDR3 is absolutely NOT the same as DDR3 - no ifs ands or buts. GDDR3 is actually very similar to DDR2, with slightly different architecture due to different requirements. As for what is "better"?
There's a lot of technical terms to wade through, to be sure. Here's some of the vocabulary that you may see floating around:
Synchronous: as in, 'running your RAM synchronous with your FSB'; your data rate frequency * 2 = FSB frequency - some systems perform better running synchronous than having the RAM slightly faster than the FSB
Chip frequency: this is the TRUE speed of the circuitry, and the hardest to improve; this is analgous to the frequency of your CPU without using the multiplier.
I/O frequency: the rate at which the information signal comes in and out of the memory; in the case of DDR-type memory, this is 1x chip frequency for DDR, 2x chip frequency for DDR2 and 4x chip frequency for DDR3.
Data rate frequency: this is how the memory is typically labeled, e.g. the XXX of DDR-XXX; this is double the I/O frequency.
Latency: number of clock cycles read and write information to the memory, essentially.
Bandwidth: this is another way memory is labeled, e.g. the XXXX of PC-XXXX is the peak bandwidth in MB/s; this is the data rate frequency * 8 for all DDR-type memory
Here's the math you actually need to know:
Latency / Data Rate Frequency = Actual time in nanoseconds to read and write
>>> Try to minimize this number
Bandwidth * #of channels (some memory can be run as dual-channel, 2x bandwidth)
>>> Try to maximize this number
Theoretically, if there were no added complications with running your FSB synchronous or asychronous (which there are, and it varies greatly between CPUs, from largely irrelevent to complicated and annoying), DDR2-400 with a latency of 2 would perform the same as DDR2-800 with a latency of 4.
So to recap: be aware of running synch or asynch, calculate real delay in nanoseconds, and take advantage of dual-channel setups to boost bandwidth.
All specs being equal, DDR3 will be better than DDR2 due to lower power, which means less heat and longer battery life, and more theoretical room to OC. HOWEVER, I get the feeling (like what happened with the DDR/DDR2 thing) that the higher-end DDR2 modules will still outperform the new DDR3 modules to start, in terms of cost vs. real life performance.
20th August 2007 - 07:19 AM
QUOTE (ap2+Feb 17 2005, 11:10 AM)
Am I wrong, or this type of memory is already used in graphics cards??
pretty convinced tht i am posting in the wrong forum ...but boss is on my head ready to wack me real bad .....could somebody here suggest me where do i get info on the electroic working and architecture of a DDR2 SRAM....plz note DDR2 SRAM and not SDRAM....
....angleheads could mail this trapped soul at email@example.com .....cheers!!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here