DDRAM and SDRAM

I know that DDRAM is better, but how much so? I ask, because I am building myself a new computer, and while the motherboard will accept either one, included "free" (yeah, like anything is free) is a 256 MB SDRAM chip. I just want personal opinions on this, anybody run both in a system and noticed a big difference? Thanks!

 

In theory ddram is twice as fast because they can transfer data on both flips of the clock cycle.

The speed increase you would notice would be down to what you use the box for. Games and the like which dont to a lot of constant disk access would benefit from it, especially if you like running them at high resolutions with all the detail turned on.

You almost certainly wont be able to run 1 stick of ram as sdram and 1 as ddram, if they are compatible they will have to run as the slower sdram speed.

Dizz-E

 

Are you talking DDR SDRam? DDR is 180 pin and normal SDRam is 164... so they don't fit in the same slot, and few boards have both slots and no chipset lets you use both at the same time. As of right now, DDR is twice as much $$, but prices are dropping rapidly. DDR is worth it, but since you got 256 SDRam for free, if it were me (since you are building a new computer and maybe at the end of your budget) I would use the free SDRam for now and in the near future get some DDR to replace it with.

 

Thanks all. The board will support up to 2 GB of DDR, or 3 GB of PC133. You surmised the budget correctly, and I was planning on using the supplied RAM, at least for now. My other question, if anybody would be so kind, is what is the difference between PC1600 and PC2100 DDR SDRAM?

 

PC1600 works with a 200 FSB while the PC2100 is for the 266 FSB. Same thing as PC100 and PC133. You can use the PC2100 in place of the PC1600 but not the other way around.

Good Luck with the new machine.

 

Something to think about. There is work in progress for MRAM. MRAM uses magnetic charges instead of electrons to store bits. It appears technology has gone full circle as a magnetic core was the state-of-art on first and second generation computers about 35 years ago until ICs replaced solid state discrete components. It will be cheaper and more efficient than present technology where DRAM has to be repeatedily refreshed via capacitors that present a problem of leakage that causes power to be consumed.

Understandingly, MDRAM with magnetic polarity will enable user to flip a switch and be immediately in a running mode (no booting necessary), because the system files and apps are loaded in a non-volitive environment there will be no loss of files if there is a power failure, crashes or freezes, etc. Although I began work during the third generation computer, there were computers with core memory in the field, and there has never been a problem with stability and durability. Just bulky!

 

Humm... haven't seen that stuff in awhile... I started to forget about it. I haven't heard about it yet so that makes me think it is a ways from production. Do you know when they expect to roll it out? Do you know who is planning to make chipsets that will support it?

 

I've used computers running both types of RAM and I have noticed very little to no difference. There are so many other factors that can cause your computer to run slower that it should. Like an older HD or a cheap Video card.

The only place I can think that the fast memory would help out would be if you’re running the minimum recommended amount of RAM. But with prices so cheap now anyone that doesn't have 512 megs or more should invest in some.

 

Well... really anyone with over 256 won't see any difference as not too many computer's can utilize that much. Graphics programs and such need way more, but for the most part you can't touch all of the 256 at the same time. Games will prabably notice the improved speed the most...and I don't mean to argue, but in my opinion if you have an older HD, more and faster ram should speed up your computer, as then you don't have to use as much virtual memory as often. But you are right... currently not too many things will notice a difference because not too much stuff has enough data to load to reach the max transfer rate with SDRam, let alone DDR.

 

deuce,

INVESTER NEWS, December 19, 2001, Article is, "MRAM Innovator Manages Explosive Growth, Realizes Rapid ROI with QAD. "

QAD is, Dublin, Ireland-based Magnetic solutions firm and in part the article states they are on track to to realize a 100% ROI in less than 18 months. The innovation has been heralded as a key technology for the global the semiconductor industry because of the products outstanding speed, capacity and non-volitility.

Another source has stated Hynix with AMD made their first 1 megabit MRAM chip which will achieve 128 megabit size around 2004 give or take a year.

 

"Cheap RAM: Everyone should have 512MB. "

A poster complained that his system slowed down after installing 512 RAM. If my memory serves, I believe 128 is optimum for the ME O/S. It can handle 512 MB based on addressing capabilities, but after 128 MB there is gradual decline in speed or efficiency as RAM is increased. It is my understanding XP utilizes well additional RAM, but there is no empirical evidence or data that I know that gives stats in that regard. Just opinions.

This is within the realm of reason if one considers any instrument, element, device, or machine has optimization at some point where there begins to have tradeoffs between competing factors intrinsically involved for utilization whether it be mechanical or electronic. As an example an auto can go a 110 miles MPH, but the gas consumption is optimized at about 55 MPH in terms of gallons per mile. There is a gradual decrease in efficiency in consumption as speed is increased. More is not always better!!

 

512 is a breakoff point where systems that do not have cache sizes specified can run into grief.

WinME can't handle more than 512 megs of memory

It's a problem with all 9x version (Me is actually 98 Third Edition).

 

Thanks for some clarification; there was an old post on the ME forum (now wiped out) that addressed that issue when the poster stated his system did not speed up and possibly slopwed down with the addition of RAM to 512MB. Arie was one of the responders and he said ME doesn't like more RAM and XL loves more RAM (to paraphreas).

With addressing constraints aside, it is my understanding that effiency standards are compromised with each additional MB of RAM at some point. To give a visionary, X and Y corrodinates on a graph be speed and RAM sizes respectfully. There is a steep rise of the curve and at some point the curve begins to flatten out and this would be the optimization point. Less bang for the buck so to speak from that point on.

The link provided doesn't dispute the analysis, but goes on to state there is retroactivity at 512MB. At this point there is a breakdown! Whether and how much speed/efficiency after optimiztion may be machine and apps specific on an individual basis. This may be an apples and oranges issue of comparison.

 

DDR will most likely give you a 5-10% performance increase over SDRAM. The "double the performance" thing is theoretical - not real world. Having plenty of RAM is essential but IMHO, the upgrade that will have the most impact on your machine is to get a top-notch hard drive. Booting, loading apps, loading massive game levels will be SO much faster with today's start-of-the-art 7200 IDE drives. When I put an IBM 60GXP in my Duron 650 box, it almost felt as fast as my 1.2G Tbird box. Moral of the story: to speed up your machine, work on the slowest component!

 

Thanks for all of the advice! I start on the assembly tomorrow - after UPS runs, and finish Thursday - after UPS runs again. I think this thread served many purposes for more than just me.

 

I went from a P11-300Mhz, 128RAM, 5400 to a P4 -1.4Ghz, 256RAM, 20GB EIDE 7200 drive and XP O/S.

Frankly, I don't see that much of an improvement from my older system with ME installed, but I am not into graphic intensive programs where I suspect this new system will give superior performance. Referring to prior post, an extended IDE drive may have some additional benefit.