Why is DDr RAM more expensive than DDR2?

[XabbaRus]

Title says it all. I ordered up the wrong RAM based on what my system was telling me and didn't find out till I opened the case and had a look. Fortunatley I can send it back but DDR RAM is twice the price.

[antikristuseke]

Because DDR ram is pretty much out of production and is more of a nishe product than mainstream unlike DDR2

[XabbaRus]

Bummer if your PC is only 2 1/2 years old and plenty of life left in it.

[FIREWALL]

Same reason AGP vid card is more expensive than PCI-E.

Old tech = more money :p

[antikristuseke]

Bummer if your PC is only 2 1/2 years old and plenty of life left in it.

I know, as you can see from my signature im on DDR ram aswell.

[sonar732]

Who can forget RAMBUS's hipe?

[kiwi_2005]

Its like in some cases AGP graphic cards are dearer than PCI-E. Brand new still in its wrapping but because its old it dearer! :shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

Because DDR is better! :D Not kidding. Give me my low latency any day over something that didn't need to go any faster, at least not yet. I bet a DDR based machine running a CPU intensive benchmark will outperform a DDR2 based machine given identical CPU's and everything else identical.

-S

[stabiz]

Oki-doki.

[nikimcbee]

Because DDR ram is pretty much out of production and is more of a nishe product than mainstream unlike DDR2

I can answer that question! I work in the DDR2 industry.:know: You are right on the money! The market is currently flooded with DDR2 RAM, thus, lowering the price....dammit.:damn: We make more money selling the older product, because the chip market isn't flooded with it.

[XabbaRus]

OK niki can you send me 4 x 1GB stick of PC3200 DDR please? :)

[sonar732]

I remember the pricing system of automotive parts being insane. We had three prices that would dictate how much comission the salesperson would get. John Doe's would get the highest price, body repair shops would get the next, and finally other dealers would get the cheapest. How about hooking us up Niki?

[SUBMAN1]

Oki-doki.Trust me. You never hit 6.4 GB/sec bandwidth for system memory (maybe a file server of some sort might, but not a desktop). What you transfer is a ton of tiny files while your system is in operation. For a large texture transfer such as that found on video cards, higher speed ram is important. For system memory, latency actually is more important simply because each transcation has to wait a latency time before it is able to read and write. So a DDR2 module that has a latency time of say 5 ns, has to wait 5 ns each and every time a transaction is done before it can start completing. A DDR module at 2 ns may not have the throughput of a DDR2 module, but the DDR module is already transfering 2x to 2.5x faster than the DDR2 module.

So for the typical system that transfers millions of tiny files through memory all day long, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that latency is going to outperform throughput in a scenario like this.

On a completely different subject, your computer never needs 6.4 GB / sec (The speed of stadard DDR2 at 800 MHz, and this is the exact same speed of DDR in dual channel mode at 400 MHz). You computer will never utilize this throughput already - in testing, maybe half of this speed is utilized on a constant basis. System memory is following video card memory, and always has, so maybe they are just making us buy new memory for a new sale without benefit to us. Actually, this may be a negative benefit to us in normal daily transactions.

This makes me question why we had DDR2 shoved down our throats?

Does anyone remember RAMBUS? RAMBUS is like DDR2 in performance, yet back when the heat was on between the competing formats, and all the testing was done, you always had the lower latency DDR outperforming the higher throughput RAMBUS??? Same deal today, but I guess the march of technology must move forward, even if its not in a positive sense.

[...gets off soapbox....]

-S

PS. I just figured it out - this is being pushed because some boards use IGP's with shared memory. This is being pushed on us to be compatible with those, and still make it easy on the consumer to figure out what the proper memory to buy for their system. No other reason I can think of. Video cards need throughput over latency for large textures, so IGP's can perform OK on system RAM if its got the throughput.

[XabbaRus]

my mobo has an IGP when no 3rd party card is being used but still it is DDR, I was a bit shocked when I looked at teh latency of my 256MB stick and saw it is 2.5 CL where the wrong DDR2 Ram I got is 5 CL.

[antikristuseke]

There is more to ram timings than just CAS latency, allso there are quite a few reasons why DDR and DDR2 are incompatible. Firstly its the pin layout and they both use diferent protocols when accesing and storing things in memory.

[SUBMAN1]

There is more to ram timings than just CAS latency, allso there are quite a few reasons why DDR and DDR2 are incompatible. Firstly its the pin layout and they both use diferent protocols when accesing and storing things in memory.You didn't read what I wrote.

-S

[antikristuseke]

I was not replying to your post SUBMAN1.

[SUBMAN1]

I was not replying to your post SUBMAN1.Ahh! Got it! :D And I agree - it is pin incompatible, so its not like a choice you have. Your motherboard dictates the type you have to use.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

I had noticed DDR was more expensive than the others when I went to 2 gig over 6 months ago. Oh well, everyone has their poison. I purchased it anyway. I also got a new AGP Nvidia 7800 GS OC just last week. My system should last another year. She be a dying breed....:oops: By then they will be handing out dual cores for a song and Vista just might be all it is supposed to be.

[SUBMAN1]

AGP is not dead - ATI is making a 3870 for it! Fast card for an AGP slot!

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

AGP is not dead - ATI is making a 3870 for it! Fast card for an AGP slot!

-S

I looked at the new ATI AGP cards. They look good but, reading over driver issues and the lack of driver support for my old X1300 which is not really that old, turned me off to the ATI product. I have always been successful with NVidia. The program for them is simple and set up is simple. The CCC offered by ATI was not impressive at all. I went with the Ray Adams ATI tool tray program to run my X1300. Not to mention the 7800 GS I did purchase is quite good and I'm extremely happy with this card. Also, my motherboard is made by Nvidia and it all just seems to work together nicely. I do not suspect I will purchase any more ATI products. Surfing around the forums here like the diligent moderator I am, I see more issues with ATI than Nvidia.

[SUBMAN1]

You lost me. First off the x1300 is for 2D only. It has 3d capability, but wasn't intended to be anything more than a laptop chipset, so feel good if you got any use out of it.

ATI releases drivers for the x1300 and my card once per month!

And I see lots of NVidia users claiming that ATI cards have issues, but I have yet to see even 'one' that they describe. Can someone please tell me what this is all about?

And if you're after DX10, at least ATI cards implement it fully. NVidia 8800 series for example do not include the full DX10 spec. NVidia couldn't make the Virtualized memory spec work, so MS threw them a bone and made that part optional.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

The X1300 I purchased was the Visiontek X1300 XGE 512mb (overclocked out of the box). Not for a laptop that I can see. Any drivers that were provided after 7.7 would not work, ie. "3D engine will not initialize". End of story on the drivers. I tried everything to make them work. No go. Reading reviews on some of the newer AGP ATI cards, lead me to believe that drivers were still an issue with the newer cards. In fact, most of the reviews were not favorable at all. Now, I could have purchased a newer ATI card for $150.00 plus and have some possible headaches or I could purchase the 7800 GS for $120.00 and have no headaches. I compared and looked at each. My decision was the 7800 GS. Sure, DX10 not supported but, currently I have no desire to play a game that runs DX10. I play one game, SH4. My desire was to get this game to run great with realistic money invested. Reason is I see many years of playing SH4. In one years time I will start looking for dual or quad cores, the newer Nvidia cards, etc. I do not want to get into Vista at the moment. When a service pack happens along for Vista, then it is time to take a look.

Issues with the ATI card, no sun glare or halo around the sun in SH4. Green line around the screen. The CCC is worthless IMHO. I played IL2 with it and there was strange box patterns when I looked at the ground from my cockpit. Just to much tweeking and playing around with it that I was not able to enjoy the games. The Nvidia I plugged in and was playing in under 15 minutes. No fuss, no muss.

[SUBMAN1]

The X1300 I purchased was the Visiontek X1300 XGE 512mb (overclocked out of the box). Not for a laptop that I can see. Any drivers that were provided after 7.7 would not work, ie. "3D engine will not initialize". End of story on the drivers. I tried everything to make them work. No go. Reading reviews on some of the newer AGP ATI cards, lead me to believe that drivers were still an issue with the newer cards. In fact, most of the reviews were not favorable at all. Now, I could have purchased a newer ATI card for $150.00 plus and have some possible headaches or I could purchase the 7800 GS for $120.00 and have no headaches. I compared and looked at each. My decision was the 7800 GS. Sure, DX10 not supported but, currently I have no desire to play a game that runs DX10. I play one game, SH4. My desire was to get this game to run great with realistic money invested. Reason is I see many years of playing SH4. In one years time I will start looking for dual or quad cores, the newer Nvidia cards, etc. I do not want to get into Vista at the moment. When a service pack happens along for Vista, then it is time to take a look.

Issues with the ATI card, no sun glare or halo around the sun in SH4. Green line around the screen. The CCC is worthless IMHO. I played IL2 with it and there was strange box patterns when I looked at the ground from my cockpit. Just to much tweeking and playing around with it that I was not able to enjoy the games. The Nvidia I plugged in and was playing in under 15 minutes. No fuss, no muss.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The x1300 and the 7800 are night an day performance wise and capability wise. THis is like comparing that board to my x1900 XTX. Also, what was the memory on that board? That might be the cause of some of your strangeness issues, or possibly overheating. Maybe this caused your initialization issue.

I checked up on your x1300 and the latest 7.12 drivers are supported on the x1300, so that is not the problem.

On your issue of unable to initialize, sounds like it could be file corruption as well, not a driver / video card issue. Have you checked your system with a chkdsk /f lately? Just a thought. I'm guessing this, or your board was on the fritz, one of the two.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, possibly to what you have stated above, but, looking at AGP set ups currently available and the costs (both ATI and Nvidia) the 7800 made more sense to me. I also had to consider the power supply. Currenlty I have a power supply recommended for the 7800. The ATI 1900 series was asking for much higher power than I have and I was not looking to spend more money on a power supply to run the cards. Not to mention the issue of heat that go hand and hand with larger power supplies and higher end cards basically equating to more money. It adds up over time.

I also chose the 7800 because it was night and day between the two cards. So, in my mind, this was the way to go between that night and day. Performance is outstanding when playing SH4. My board is not on the fritz as you suggested. Plugged up the new Nvidia card after dumping anything that dealt with ATI, downloaded the new drivers from the Nivida site and away I went. Happy as a clam at high tide. Halo around the sun, sun glare, FPS at a far superior level than the X1300.:up:

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, possibly to what you have stated above, but, looking at AGP set ups currently available and the costs (both ATI and Nvidia) the 7800 made more sense to me. I also had to consider the power supply. Currenlty I have a power supply recommended for the 7800. The ATI 1900 series was asking for much higher power than I have and I was not looking to spend more money on a power supply to run the cards. Not to mention the issue of heat that go hand and hand with larger power supplies and higher end cards basically equating to more money. It adds up over time.

I also chose the 7800 because it was night and day between the two cards. So, in my mind, this was the way to go between that night and day. Performance is outstanding when playing SH4. My board is not on the fritz as you suggested. Plugged up the new Nvidia card after dumping anything that dealt with ATI, downloaded the new drivers from the Nivida site and away I went. Happy as a clam at high tide. Halo around the sun, sun glare, FPS at a far superior level than the X1300.:up:I'd suspect it works great in SHIV. In the end, that is all that matters!

-S

[NEON DEON]

My computer is 4 years + and uses DDR. But at $47 US for a gig of PC 3200 DDR ram, I can afford to upgrade to two gigs. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

@ Subman1

That was my aim and also a reasonable price to do it. Kids come first....:shifty:.... in fact, what I spent on my two girls for Christmas I could have a super computer but in the end, I like seeing them smile first:yep: Once they are grown and doing their own thing, then it is my time to play:p