Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconComputing Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).


Please, read this article and improve: -- (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rambus memory (RDRAM�) is a revolutionary step from SDRAM

Latency argument fails on its own merrits

SDRAM, DDR and following generations all go back to the Rambus patents which Samsung, Micron and Hynix currently are stealing - that is the only reason Rambus has law suits - they are defending their only product: IP

Worse than that, the whole article appears to be have been copied from

Removed for copyright violation. -- Anon.


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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

I thought the line about weird stuff was un-encyclopedic. I hope that this edit improves things.--Mishac 14:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed some marketspeak[edit]

I removed some (well, a lot of) text because it is clearly Rambus marketspeak (and is hideously outdated):

The Direct RDRAM, hereafter referred to as RDRAM, features an architecture and a protocol designed to achieve high effective bandwidth. The Rambus channel architecture has a single-device upgrade granularity, offering engineers the ability to balance performance requirements against system capacity and component count. The narrow, high-performance channel also offers performance and capacity scalability through the use of multiple channels in parallel. In addition, the validation program created by Intel and Rambus promotes system stability by ensuring that devices and modules conform to published specifications. Although RDRAMs have a low pin count, a single device is capable of providing up to 1.6 GB/s bandwidth. Memory systems that use RIMMs {Rambus inline memory module} or (RDRAM modules) employ a narrow, uniform-impedance transmission line, the Rambus Channel, to connect the memory controller to a set of RIMMs. Low pin count and uniform interconnection topology allow easy routing and reduction of pin count on the memory controller. While a single channel is capable of supplying 1.6 GB/s of bandwidth, multiple channels can be used in parallel to increase this number. Systems that use, for example, the Intel 840 chipset have two parallel Rambus channels, and are able to handle up to 3.2 GB/s.

Providing high bandwidth from a single device also allows memory systems to be constructed from small numbers of RDRAMs. The Sony PlayStation2 uses two RDRAM channels, each with a single RDRAM, to achieve a total of 3.2 GB/s memory bandwidth.

In order to ensure stability of RDRAM memory systems, design guidelines and a validation program have been put in place that surpass requirements set for previous memory technologies. Intel and Rambus have defined system specs to ensure robustness of RDRAMs and of the channel to the memory controller. In addition, they have created a rigorous validation programs for certification of RDRAMs and RIMM modules.

thanks for rewording supa[edit]

reads more clearly, was trying to keep as much of the previous entry as possible. Could be improved more, will come back when I have time and citations. That last paragraph sounds like it was pulled from a rambus marketing doc and could be easily be dropped without taking away from the piece.

Using binary prefixes for brandwidth.[edit]

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

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)

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)Reply[reply]

17:29, 26 August 2006 Denniss (Rev, all related articles use correct binary prefixes)[edit]

Well, i've cheched following articles:

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)

Neutrality Dispute[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Raising prices of a competing product to force RDRAM out of market[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

What actually *is* RDRAM?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is howto tag relevant anymore?[edit]

Reading through the article, I don't see any how-to instructions anymore. The offending paragraph seems to have been reworded to remove such an objection. Could the {{howto}} tag be removed at this point?

I'd remove it myself, except I don't feel confident making such a judgment call.

No mention of pre-Direct RDRAM[edit]

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. (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Performance and Benchmarks sections[edit]

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. (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? The benchmark is objective and nearly all benchmarks found online have similar results. It is possible to do a benchmark that makes RDRAM win (and spectacularly so) by specifically testing things it's good at and ignoring the rest. The website of rambus has such a benchmark that maybe can be included (or linked) to show both sides. I I don't think the performance and benchmark is off-topic, as some users might base purchasing decisions on reading the wikepedia page. I'll add references to the benchmarks when I have time. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RDRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]