Talk:RDRAM

message: can anyone please comment on low density and high density?
If I remember correctly, the high density memory problem appeared
with DDR, and was not an issue with Rambus.
thanks
:I still don't get the xmbit info I find. I've also read that single-side vs double-side is not assured indication. but, I'm quite sure density "problem" began with pc133. early pc133 was still "low density". Soon, pc133 dimms were made with high density chips, which caused trouble for pre-2000 (2001?) mobos. however, all pc133 is OTHERWISE backwards compatible to pc"66" (plain old SDR). more searching might show symptoms, and whether some bios upgrades might fix the problem (or maybe not. chipset may be the problem with high density) I have yt to read what appears only wp info DDR_SDRAM#High_density_vs_low_density --2z2z (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Density in this context refers to the capacity of each chip.  The problem occurs when (sometime long after it's initial release) a larger chip is designed, which earlier boards were never designed for.  This problem is not unique to any particular type of memory.  I would be surprised if it were ever a problem with RDRAM simply because of its short lifespan. -Juventas (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Density

message: Let me explain:
text from the article:
-----
...which operated at 400 MHz and delivered 1.6 GiB/s of bandwidth over a 16-bit bus...
-----
Let's calculate:
Brandwidth = Frequency*Bus_Width*2 (2 for DDR)
Frequency = 400 MHz = 400 000 000 Hz
Bus_Width = 16 bit = 2 Byte
So, 
Brandwidth = 400 000 000 Hz * 2 byte * 2 = 1 600 000 000 byte/s = 1600 MB/s.
No Mebi- or Gibibytes here. Everything is decimal. I revert to my version. 
If you think i am not right - please explain why. --Rotsor 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating. I hadn't thought it through before. I'm the person who initially put the binary prefixed bandwidth numbers here. You definitely appear to be correct as long as you're multiplying through with bytes and not mebibytes or kibibytes, say. It would make much sense to do that though lol. Works for me. --Swaaye 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using binary prefixes for brandwidth. 

message: Well, i've cheched following articles:
*XDR DRAM
*DDR SDRAM
*DDR2 SDRAM
*DDR3 SDRAM
None of them used any binary prefixes when speaking about brandwidth. So, you have to provide some more solid argumentation. --Rotsor 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 17:29, 26 August 2006 Denniss (Rev, all related articles use correct binary prefixes)

message: I fail to see how this collection of completely true information can be painted as being biased.  Can someone explain how this section is not neutral?  Please cite specifically the problem wording, and how it would be corrected with semantics.  
The cold hard fact of the matter is that RDRam is much more highly priced, and NEVER achieved any market dominance.  As a technology enthusiast, it really looks to me like it's a strictly personal thing against the original author of some kind, as I don't see where the truth is being misrepresented.
I'll give you guys a little while to respond before I remove the tag.
CameronB 14:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as how no-one has found a need to respond to the Neutrality dispute, it's been close enough to a day, I can assume that there is no problem with Neutrality.  I'll remove the unnecessary tag then.  CameronB 17:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Pertaining to "In 2004, it was revealed that Infineon, Hynix, Samsung, Micron, Elpida had entered a price-fixing scheme against Rambus during 2001, to force RDRAM out of the market.[18] This gave major memory manufacturers motive to drive Rambus and its RDRAM technology out of market. "
I don't understand how price fixing to raise the price of competing memory like DDR, SDRAM can harm RDRAM in the market.  Normally dumping or selling below cost is the method used to force a competitor out of the market.  It is nice that the statement provides a link, but the concept still appears to make no sense.  I'm going to be bold and remove the nonsensical implication.
Damle64 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it has to do with the fact that those companies were manufacturing RDRAM and that is what they were price fixing. They were keeping the price higher than DDR to force RDRAM out of the market. OracleGuy01 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising prices of a competing product to force RDRAM out of market 

message: The article doesn't actually say anywhere what RDRAM really is. In particular, what is the technical difference between RDRAM and standard DRAM? Also, there is a list of disadvantages of RDRAM compared to the competition, but no list of any advantages whatsoever!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardNeill (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What actually *is* RDRAM? 

message: It'd be nice if this article would explain that there have been two incompatible types of memory marketed as RDRAM. The second one, which was adopted by Intel, is the "Direct RDRAM" type. The article should also discuss the first type. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two DRDRAM predecessors: Rambus DRAM was the original (c. 1990) Rambus DRAM, which was followed up in the early- to mid-1990s by Concurrent RDRAM. AZ1199 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of pre-Direct RDRAM 

message: They both have serious POV problems. If the purpose is to provide details on these topics thats fine, but the constant (unfavorable) comparisons smell badly of POV. There is no need to constantly reference what DDR does better. There is also, um, zero references for any of this content?? Very much in need of some clean up. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance and Benchmarks sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on RDRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150503003151/http://www.computerwriter.com/Star/2000/jun/cw062100_intel_i820_mth_recall.htm to http://www.computerwriter.com/Star/2000/jun/cw062100_intel_i820_mth_recall.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on RDRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621031911/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-523724.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-523724.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/Intel%2Bdrops%2BRambus%2Bsubsidies/2100-1001_3-270561.html
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2161_v43/ai_19288320
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430131325/http://n64.icequake.net/ to http://n64.icequake.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524090904/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/fun.games/10/24/linux.ps2.idg/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/fun.games/10/24/linux.ps2.idg/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified