• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Asus P4T533-C, Any advantag over DDR?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Kurant

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
I was lookin at an Asus P4T533-C. I keep reading about how great the PC1066 is performing. I have also read on 2 sites that do hardware reviews, DDR can not yet compete with board and RAM configuration.

I was just wondering if anyone, in some refined detail could explain the advantage of DDR over this? I'm seriously considering going this route, and waiting till the DDR2 platforms have become popular enough to buy.
 
For the absolute fastest benches the way to go is indeed RDRAM no doubt...but to say DDR isn't competetive is to be blinded by 14000 3D Marks over 13000 3D Marks. It's a personal decision in this area. Which DDR setups were compared to the P4T533-C? With the newer Intel 845PE chipset I'd say DDR is competetive with RDRAM...especially considering the difference in available bandwidth between DDR333 and RDRAM1066. How much do benchmarks rule your life?

DDR is cheaper than RDRAM (but not by much when considering 'specialty' DDR400), DDR mobos can be had for less than half the price of RDRAM mobos and with much more variety.

RDRAM has had negative publicity against it and it's continued usage is a bit fuzzy. Latencies were horrible in the past, but have improved recently.

I'd say it's much like choosing between a Ti4600 and Ti4400. Many can live with the performance difference if it saves them money.

Now that Dual Channel DDR is upon us I'd say RDRAM has some very stiff competition. The price for a DCDDR mobo is very high, but that was the same arguement for RDRAM when comparing to single channel DDR. Now all of a sudden these RDRAM 'top performance at whatever cost' users are commenting about how expensive a DCDDR board will cost?
 
Last edited:
Well said Syntax_Error.

I'll add that DDR is a better platform for the future. The first D-DDR boards for Intel CPU's, the Granite Bay, only uses a default memory speed of DDR266 and this matches the memory bandwidth of PC1066 RDRAM.

I can't recommend GB boards just because they are so damned expensive and they don't offer a proportionate boost in application performance compared to the 845PE running DDR333.

But you could buy an 845PE with DDR400 today, overclock the memory speed to nearly eliminate the performance edge of a GB or PC1066 setup, and then transport that memory to the upcoming Springdale and Canterwood boards that will run D-DDR400 and boost the FSB to 800MHz. You don't often get to carry over components on a next-generation upgrade but this is one of them.

The future of Rambus is much less certain. Intel announced early last fall that the 850E will be the last desktop chipset to use RDRAM memory. SiS displayed a non-running prototype of a future Rambus board at the Intel Developers Forum last November. But there wasn't a commitment to production then and I haven't heard a word about it since.



BHD
 
Kurant said:
I was just wondering if anyone, in some refined detail could explain the advantage of DDR over this? I'm seriously considering going this route, and waiting till the DDR2 platforms have become popular enough to buy.
I agree with all the above comments.

If you're running the 3:4 memory ratio on that 152MHz FSB then you're getting about DDR405 speed right? If that's the case then you should think about waiting for 4 months and then getting a Springdale/Canterwood board. If you're only running the 1:1 ratio and DDR304 speed then going to RDRAM and PC1200 (4x RDRAM on a 150MHz FSB) would certainly offer a nice performance boost for you. If I were you I'd wait for the Springdale/Canterwood stuff though. :)
 
Have a look at this review of Gigabyte's new SiS655 DCDDR board...look closely at the spread of benches between the SiS655, SiS648, Intel Granite Bay, Intel 850e and Intel 845PE...getting very fine: http://www.ocworkbench.com/2003/gigabyte/sinxp1394/sinxp1394-1.htm

I'd say it's difficult to get a bad platform today. A couple of years ago a P4 SDRAM would have been a bad choice, but no such thing exists any more.

It all comes down to the question I posed earlier...How much do benchmarks rule your life?
 
I had the chance to upgrade from my Packard bell 256meg RDram. I decided to stop with the RDram as the cost of DDR is now the same. If you look around you will find the price as droped and is in some cases cheaper then the DDR. The RDram was then used in my new board GA-8Ixp which was a bit expencive but a well built board and package.
 
Syntax-thanks for the link to the sis 655 review. I agree with your point that its hard to get a bad platform at default settings. But if you want to overclock, SiS still blows.

If you missed the review, the SINXP1394 running a 1.8A topped out at 143MHz-and that was with Gigabyte's 6-Phase Power Widget. Running off the PSU it hit the wall at 139.

Pathetic.



BHD
 
Good and informative posts guys, but no i have to disagree on the the fact that no single channel ddr setup can match a rdram setup performance wise. But yes dual channel ddr looks promising.
 
Well, I just replaced my P4T533 with a P4PE.
I can tell you that I saw no seat of the pants difference.
It did bench mark a bit slower, but I couldnt tell by the feel.
I had been running a 2.26 in the P4T533, and I could never get the thing stable at other than very minor overclocks.
I ran the 2.26 in the P4PE to see how far I could clock it up before going at my new 2.8 chip.
Now, the fact that I could over clock it higher, means I get a faster machine on the whole, rather than a slower one with faster memory
As someone that owns both, I'd recomend the P4PE over the P4T533.
 
Back