two channel DDR is a lot better than RD-RAM btw
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Last edited by Obiwan (2007-01-22 21:41:17)
I'd rather pick it up in a store though, like bestbuy or something.Jello.01 wrote:
The best I found on newegg for agp was this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6814161069
It should be the best for agp at the moment from what I heard.
Only if he had the newest 32 bit memory bus boards AND splashed out on new higher bandwidth modules then it would be faster than 'normal' ddr, however I dont think the OP would be asking these questions if he had spent out thousands of dollars on all that.Bertster7 wrote:
That's what he (and everybody else) has been saying.dubbs wrote:
I would have to say that you are incorrect about RDRAM being worse the DDR. On paper RDRAM is a lot better then DDR. It can transfer data a lot quicker.aujt74 wrote:
Intel & Dell were a big fans of RDRAM for a while. Got an 2002 P4 Dell hanging around somewhere, was painful on the wallet to upgrade from the stingy 384Mb RDRAM to 1Gig RDRAM. I mean honestly, rip-off or what...
To answer the OP's question, RDRAM was good for it's time but a lot more costly than SDRAM with quite a few drawbacks. The problem is, if your motherboard is designed for RDRAM you cant use any type of SDRAM (DDR1 or DDR2) so it's a bit academical. RDRAM does significantly better performance-wise than DDR. But DDR2 is cheaper, lower latencies and greater performance.
But since you are tied to RDRAM by your mobo, there is no point worrying about it.