AMDCam said:
Plus AM2 seems like crap anyway, who cares about high-latency high-speed (I know I know, netburst was Intel's so AMD's will be lower latency, but that means a totally new type of DDR2, LOW LATENCY)? DDR3 is the future, DDR2 shouldn't have even been released with AMD, seriously.
If you bother to do the math, you'll see that in most cases DDR2 has a lower latency than DDR1.
For example:
CAS latency for DDR2-800 3-2-2 is 7.5ns. About 2.2 volts required.
DDR1 needs to be DDR534 (267MHz) 2-2-2 to be that fast. At 3.6 volts.
Seen any 1GB DDR1 dimms do that? :shadedshu
tRP and tRCD = 2 cycles on DDR2-800 3-2-2, that's
5ns for both tRP and tRCD. You'd need Winbond BH-5 at a whopping (and utterly impossible)
DDR800 to match it. That's
insane compared to the world record BH-5 tCL/tRP/tRCD each at about 6.67ns (DDR600 2-2-2).
DDR2-1200 5-4-5 cas = 8.33ns... 17% lower access latency than on DDR400 2-2-2, but bandwidth is easily
twice that.
Latency is a larger concept than simply the amount of cycles. Frequency plays a huge role with latency.
POGE said:
GDDR3 is still DDR3... just a different flaver of it.
DDR3 is nothing like GDDR3, which is based on
GDDR2,
not DDR3 spec.
Believe it or not, DDR3 and GDDR3 have technically very little in common.
btw. DDR3 is much like DDR2. Differences are few:
- lower operating voltage
- higher frequency (>1066MHz)
- higher latency (~4-8 cycles, in nanoseconds it's equal, due to higher frequency, not likely any lower)
