New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DDR vs DDR2: Revealed!

post #1 of 18
3/11/05 at 1:12pm
Thread Starter 
Some of these are desktop version, but pretty much same result in notebook world.

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Artic..._DDR2/pg_5.htm
Quote:
When you get right down to it, for today's performance the differences between using DDR and DDR2 at 533MHz, there is little to no difference. Where DDR2 will shine, is in it's overclocking potential and the promise of future applications making use of it's enhanced speed and bandwidth. As when DDR was first introduced over SDRAM, it will be a while before these advantages are fully realized, but DDR2 will be sure to come into it's own sooner rather than later. Right now, there is no reason to upgrade your existing system based solely on DDR2. However, having said that, if you are already thinking it's time to upgrade, I would definitely recommend going with a DDR2 platform for future expandability not to mention it's overclocking potential.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...play/ddr2.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...alviso-04.html
Quote:
The user should take a closer look when purchasing and especially when upgrading a notebook in the future. In conjunction with the two chipsets (Mobile 915GM and 915PM) and in addition to the DDR2 and dual-channel notebook designs, there's also a variety of DDR memory designs (915GM) and DDR2 single-channel designs available from producers.

Another potential upgrade problem exists when a notebook PC designed for dual-channel operation is equipped with only a single 256 MB DDR2 module. If the user later wants to upgrade to 512 MB or more, he can't be 100% sure that an additional 256 MB will result in a successful upgrade. He may have to buy two new identical 256MB DDR2 modules, or two 512 MB DDR2 modules to upgrade to 1 GB. We don't recommend an upgrade plan for dual-channel systems that involves combining modules of different capacities, such as one DDR2-256 MB and a DDR2-512 MB, because memory performance will go through the floor.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/...alviso-23.html
Quote:
As the benchmark results tables reveal, the speed advantage afforded by the new platform's dual-channel DDR2-533 memory is a maximum of 5% compared to single-channel mode. This outcome is not really surprising, because if you look at the peak bandwidths of the new CPU's memory and FSB, you can see that the single-channel configuration is already sufficient to provide enough data to the CPU. The doubling of memory bandwidth thus has only a marginal effect on performance.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...-rmma-1ch.html
Quote:
The results can hardly be called sensational. Maximal real bandwidth of DDR2-533 memory really matches the announced 4.3 GB/s in the single-channel mode and exceeds DDR-400 memory bandwidth in it. However, it can't be referred to its indisputable advantages at least because current Intel i915/i925 chipsets supporting DDR2 can also work perfectly in the dual-channel mode. And that makes the single-channel DDR2 absolutely unattractive compared to the same dual-channel DDR. Thus, the main previously-made conclusion holds good: the use of DDR2 will not be appropriate at least until the appearance of the first CPUs with bus frequency of 1067 MHz and higher. This will enable to overcome the restriction imposed by CPU bus speed on real bandwidth of the memory subsystem in the dual-channel mode.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2088&p=17
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
3/11/05 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The new faster and more frugal DDR2 memory technology turns out to be more of a paper tiger than a real brute when used with the new 533 MHz FSB Pentium M and the 915PM chipset with dedicated graphics chip and memory. The dual-channel memory interface of the 915PM chipset doesn't have much impact either. The performance-limiting factor remains for the time being the too-small maximum FSB bandwidth of Intel's current mobile CPU generation.
http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...alviso-25.html
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
3/11/05 at 2:21pm
so we are all buying this memory for no reason?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
3/11/05 at 2:58pm
pretty much. ahh marketing

Tellerve
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
3/11/05 at 2:58pm
Pretty much! Looks to me like a person could get lower latency DDR 333mh and probably still be faster on a typical Centrino scheme.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by smilepak
The new faster and more frugal DDR2 memory technology turns out to be more of a paper tiger than a real brute when used with the new 533 MHz FSB Pentium M and the 915PM chipset with dedicated graphics chip and memory. The dual-channel memory interface of the 915PM chipset doesn't have much impact either. The performance-limiting factor remains for the time being the too-small maximum FSB bandwidth of Intel's current mobile CPU generation.

But there is still a performance gain

"As the benchmark results tables reveal, the speed advantage afforded by the new platform's dual-channel DDR2-533 memory is a maximum of 5% compared to single-channel mode. This outcome is not really surprising, because if you look at the peak bandwidths of the new CPU's memory and FSB, you can see that the single-channel configuration is already sufficient to provide enough data to the CPU. The doubling of memory bandwidth thus has only a marginal effect on performance."
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:06pm
Thread Starter 
There is still a performance gain ofcourse, but does it warrant the price differences. hehehe
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:07pm
Just read somewhere else today on the forums that DDR2 is only like 2.x watts whereas DDR is 4 or 5 watts. Or maybe it was 1.5 versus 2.5 or something like that.
The point is its perhaps 5% faster and uses 50% of the power as DDR memory.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:07pm
DDR-II right now is pretty much throwing your money in the water. Only when the speed reaches 800 MHz, would we really see significant improvement over DDR 400, because of the much higher latency that DDR-II represents. The greatest proposed advantage of DDR-II in its infancy was that it will eventually become cheaper than DDR-I, not that it will be faster. And at this point, it is not only not cheaper, but in fact more costly than DDR-I, which gives us no reason to buy it. And DDR-III will be out in the second half of 06, and then the DDR-II modules will be obsolete before they come to dominate the market.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchfred
so we are all buying this memory for no reason?

DDRII does run at a lower voltage doesn't it? Might offer oh.. 10 minutes more battery life.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
3/11/05 at 3:23pm
Thread Starter 
I believe 1.8v, no?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
3/11/05 at 4:41pm
It does run at a lower voltage, I don't remember how much lower. The primary advantage of ddr2 is with integrated graphics. Sure, the cpu might not need the 8 gig bandwidth, but if you're sharing memory with the graphics card all that bandwidth ends up pretty useful.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
3/11/05 at 8:21pm
think of how much a ULV PM costs compared to just the regular LV PM, and DDR Vs DDR2 will make sense,
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
3/11/05 at 9:55pm
ddr = 2.5 volts, ddr2 = 1.8 volts
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
3/11/05 at 11:05pm
yeh, as noted in a number of reviews, we likely won't start seeing significant performance gains untill we get into the 667 DDR-II, anyone ever wonder why they don't call it 666? typically the only time the DDR2 stuff is on par w/ DDR clock for clock is when/if u can get some stuff w/lower latencies.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 18
3/12/05 at 12:34am
lol when you round 666.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66666666666666666 repeating mhz, you get 667mhz but im PRETTY sure you already knew that
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 18
3/12/05 at 1:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_enuffsax
The primary advantage of ddr2 is with integrated graphics. Sure, the cpu might not need the 8 gig bandwidth, but if you're sharing memory with the graphics card all that bandwidth ends up pretty useful.
Maybe, but if you are running a system with integrated graphics, what are the odds that you'll have a machine with more than 256 MB (or at best 512 MB) of RAM. One usually doesn't get a low level budget notebook to game on it. This is even more true on budget desktops (emachines, Compaq, et all) with the new chipsets (generally in the $500 - $700 range where integrated graphics is typically the rule). Now in notebooks, I guess there might be reason to rejoice. I mean nothing like spending gobs of money on ddr2 memory for that budget notebook. Come on, if you are buying from Sager or even Dell, you are getting at least an ATI 9700 mobility.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 18
3/12/05 at 2:17pm
There are a lot of reasons to get more memory other than gaming. I don't plan to game but I'm planning on getting at least a gig just so that I'll have a laptop that's useable 3 or more years from now. I'm not saying integrated graphics would be gameable, just that ddr2 and pci-express might mean that a few years down the line you'll be able to handle perhaps longhorn os or any 3d kind of application (NOT like video editing, just as in pretty programs).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General