- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
When 1333 CPUs come out later this year, will they need DDR3 RAM modules to run them?
If they still require DDR2 will 6400 Modules still be ok?
If they still require DDR2 will 6400 Modules still be ok?
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Mycobacteria said:When 1333 CPUs come out later this year, will they need DDR3 RAM modules to run them?
If they still require DDR2 will 6400 Modules still be ok?
Mobious said:Well, look at what it was like a few years ago when DDR2 first came out. I can still remember folks asking if they should go with an Intel 915 chipset for DDR or if they should dump on a 955X and get the slower and more skeptical DDR2. It's going to be the same thing, just go with what works and by the time it's mainstream, and decent, you'll be building a new system anyway.
-Mobious-
But that isn’t all though, as it looks like we’re definitely going to see the same problem we had with the DDR to DDR2 transition, in that low latency DDR2 will be faster than any of the first DDR3 modules. This leads to having a rather unexciting and pointless product for the next 6-12 months while DRAM manufacturers get used to the new process. Of course, if something special happens from the DRAM manufacturing industry, DDR3 could take off quickly, but all of the current signs point to that not happening.
Full Article
News flash:jivetrky said:DDR2 is faster than DDR...the downside to it was/is the higher timings. You won't find DDR2 that will do 2-3-3-5 like DDR could. But the tradeoff is the clockspeeds in DDR2 make up for the higher timings.
Mycobacteria said:The DDR3 needs a new MB?
largon said:My point is the figures generally associated with latency (=timings) are not absolute. Thinking DDR2 is worse latency-wise because it can't do 2-3-3-5 like DDR does is wrong. Timings (clock cycles) don't mean anything at all if frequency is left out of the equation, that's because the lenght of a clock cycle is inversely proportional to frequency.
Doubled frequency = halved clock cycle length.
-> double a given frequency and double the timings = latency stays the same.
-> 2-3-3-5 @ DDR1-400 is exactly same as 4-6-6-10 @ DDR2-800. DDR2-800 at those timings is ofcourse nothing but, well, slow DDR2.
DDR2 can do 4-4-4-8 at > DDR2-1200...
No DDR1 has ever been that low latency.
Assuming it's the latency that matters, not the amount of clock cycles, id est, timings.
largon said:My point is the figures generally associated with latency (=timings) are not absolute. Thinking DDR2 is worse latency-wise because it can't do 2-3-3-5 like DDR does is wrong. Timings (clock cycles) don't mean anything at all if frequency is left out of the equation, that's because the lenght of a clock cycle is inversely proportional to frequency.
Doubled frequency = halved clock cycle length.
-> double a given frequency and double the timings = latency stays the same.
-> 2-3-3-5 @ DDR1-400 is exactly same as 4-6-6-10 @ DDR2-800. DDR2-800 at those timings is ofcourse nothing but, well, slow DDR2.
DDR2 can do 4-4-4-8 at > DDR2-1200...
No DDR1 has ever been that low latency.
Assuming it's the latency that matters, not the amount of clock cycles, id est, timings.