So I've got these two old pcs, both with pentium 4's and i wanted to see if I could improve one at the saccrifice of the other and do something fun with it.
Deciding on a processor was simple, one was on 2.4ghz and one was 2.66ghz, so far so good.
However when I got to the ram I was quite perplexed.
One rig, a dell has four of [url=http://www.memory4less.com/m4l_itemdetail.asp?itemid=331275]these[/url] and the other (a custom build) has two mismatched 256mb DDR PC2700 (333mhz).
Which would be the more prudent choice for performance and why?
Thanks in advance.
The RDRAM would probably be better. Higher clock (400 mHz instead of 333), same total size. I don't think the higher latency of RDRAM is going to make a big difference.
I'd go with the DDR333 machine hands down.
Rambus memory is, and always has been extremely expensive. Since the standard fell out of use in the computer market, it's difficult to get in quantity. And if you can't afford to replace the memory, you have to install CRIMMs, which are even more obscure and hard to get.
Rambus is also crippled by high latency and high heat production, which is already exacerbated by the heat and power consumption of the Pentium 4.
rdram is generally faster than DDR.
[QUOTE=bohb;25930791]I'd go with the DDR333 machine hands down.
Rambus memory is, and always has been extremely expensive. Since the standard fell out of use in the computer market, it's difficult to get in quantity. And if you can't afford to replace the memory, you have to install CRIMMs, which are even more obscure and hard to get.
Rambus is also crippled by high latency and high heat production, which is already exacerbated by the heat and power consumption of the Pentium 4.[/QUOTE]
"Expensive" doesn't matter when he already owns it. "Replaceable" also doesn't matter as much, since he's building this out of spare parts for fun. Both of your points would be valid if he was building a new rig, but for this? No.
The RDRAM he has has about a 45ns latency. The DDR has 15ns. So for truly random access, the DDR would be better. However, memory usually isn't read in random chunks, but contiguous blocks. At that, the 66mHz increase in speed means the RDRAM would probably be better.
If the OP wants, you can just run any benchmark, and see what works better for whatever you're doing. That would probably be the only way to settle the argument.
also keep in mind the motherboard you intend on using, if it only supports up to 333mhz, anything faster will still only run at 333mhz. also if you mix and match your ram, they will transfer at whatever speed the slowest stick runs at.
as bohb already pointed out, rambus memory is harder to obtain if the sticks you already have decide to cark it one day.
at the end of the day everyone has their own preferences & as long as you know you wont be playing Crysis on it & you're just having a bit of fun, then who cares.
Which OS are you going for? XP? or maybe dual boot with XP and linux.
I would put Linux on this machine.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;25931633]"Expensive" doesn't matter when he already owns it. "Replaceable" also doesn't matter as much, since he's building this out of spare parts for fun. Both of your points would be valid if he was building a new rig, but for this? No.
The RDRAM he has has about a 45ns latency. The DDR has 15ns. So for truly random access, the DDR would be better. However, memory usually isn't read in random chunks, but contiguous blocks. At that, the 66mHz increase in speed means the RDRAM would probably be better.
If the OP wants, you can just run any benchmark, and see what works better for whatever you're doing. That would probably be the only way to settle the argument.[/QUOTE]
Rambus:
2 bytes (16 bits) * 800 MHz = 1600 MB/s
Dual channel theoretical performance: 3200 MB/s
DDR333
8 bytes (64 bits) * 333 MHz = 2664 MB/s
Dual channel theoretical performance: 5328 MB/s
This is assuming the best case scenario, which is likely not the case, but DDR333 has a clear lead regardless. Using the highway analogy, Rambus tries to move cars faster on fewer highway lanes (16 bit), which requires much higher clocks. DDR uses a wider highway (64 bit) with slower cars, which can get more data to the destination.
Ah, forgot the bus width. Nevermind then, go with the DDR.
Oh, okay. Thanks man.
[editline]9th November 2010[/editline]
Actually, because I can, what would be the best way to benchmark these two systems?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.