Ddrram Vs. Rdram?

Jag har kört på paketet med DDR-minne, för RDRAM är så överskattat.

Varför anser du att RDram är överskattat? *nyfiken*

För dom är snabba i teorin, men inte så snabba i praktiken. Därför det känns lite dumt att betala ett överpris för en produkt som inte håller vad den lovar.

Conclusions

Technical issues are a minor factor in this equation for the average desktop.

RDRAM will probably always cost more than DDR, but (provided that yields of PC800 can be brought to reasonable levels) it should not cost inherently a great deal more than DDR once mass-produced. However, there is considerable doubt these circumstances will come to pass.

Intel and the memory manufacturers have incompatible agendas. On top of that, the memory manufacturers really don't like Rambus.

We do not know and will not know if RDRAM actually has significant performance advantages until we have and test the Tehama motherboard. Current cost/benefit analysis precludes the use of RDRAM in Coppermine-based systems.
However, very preliminary signs indicate that the current little benefit/substantial additional cost will shift to some benefit/somewhat less additional cost. It is too soon to determine whether the additional benefit would be worth the additional cost for most, since we don't know the values of either, nor will know before the fall at earliest.

Even if the Willamette/Tehama combination proves better than a DDR platform, cost/benefit will remain critical. However, it would be foolish to assume that RDRAM cannot become reasonably price-competitive. It would be just as foolish to assume that price-competitiveness is inevitable.

If RDRAM production ramps up to at least the degree needed to initially supply Willamette, and prices are at least somewhat competitive with DDR, RDRAM stands a good chance of becoming the general desktop standard. If these conditions are not met, this is very unlikely to happen.

Källa