512mb RDRAM or 1024mb DDRAM?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Dave K, Apr 19, 2003.

  1. Dave K

    Dave K

    I'm shopping for a new computer to trade from and learning alot along the way. As far as desktop memory goes; I know the PC1066 RDRAM is better than the PC2700 DDRAM, but you can get 1024mb of DDRAM for the same price as 512mb RDRAM. I'm mostly using this for daytrading on two monitors. I know there's better/faster DDRAM on the way, and Intel is phasing out RDRAM all together, but I need to decide between those two memories right now.
     
  2. how about 8192Mb EOD ?
     
  3. RD RAM is probably a waste of money for what you want to do. Unless you're doing something specialised like 3D animation, you will not benefit from RD RAM.

    Runningbear
     
  4. To me, I'd rather have the higher amount of Ram that is fast enough anyway, rather than a lesser amount of RAM which is faster but not enough faster.

    Some of the things I run are very memory & CPU intensive and I can't justify the additional cost of 1024 RDRAM over DDRAM.

    So the new machine I've just had put together has 1024 DDRAM and I've spent the extra money on a fast good quality motherboard and the fastest CPU I could manage...

    My 0.02c

    Natalie
     
  5. a5519

    a5519

    If many applications are running in parallel, more RAM is better as more speed. If it comes to paging, CPU or memory speed doesn't help.
     
  6. My 2 machines run with PC100 and DDR 2100 ram. No obvious difference, so I doubt either ram would make a difference for your system... though DDR seems like the more practical choice.
     
  7. I would go with DDR. If it's solely for trading purposes it will do the trick just fine. Actually it'll do the trick in most circumstances.
     
  8. Dave K

    Dave K

    That's what I thought. Going with the DDR.
     
  9. Salmon

    Salmon

    Buy ECC memory if your motherboard support this type of memory, all workstations use this type of memory. (ECC-Error correction code).
     
    #10     Apr 20, 2003