Upgrading my NLE... so whatta' ya' think?

K. Forman · October 31st, 2004, 07:09 AM

P.S. As an after thought, you said you replaced everything EXCEPT the MB and power supply? If it just goes off, it may be the power supply, even though I am willing to bet it is the Asus board.

P.P.S. I really want to come over to your house for Peanut butter and jelly samiches! I like the way you think!

Matt Gettemeier · October 31st, 2004, 10:13 AM

Keith, you should have been here last night. Really. I wanted to get out the dvx but I wasn't sure if it would push the insanity further or end it. Now that it's the next morning I wish I had. LOL... I hate using "LOL"... but THIS time, it fits... 'cause I am.

Hey I DID replace the power supply. The new p/s didn't make a difference... so I went back to the old one. I got a standard ATX 420watt to test the p/s issue, and once the computer resorted to it's bad behavior I put my Enermax Silent 480 back in. (I didn't think it could have been the p/s considering I got the best one I could at the time... but I checked it anyway.)

And I AM on a new mobo now. I decided to try an Intel 875. I doubt Intel has the outright performance of some other boards, but I'll always take a couple steps down for stability (after my Asus issues.)

If I can get my current system sorted I'll be really happy with it. That said I'm surprised Rambus never caught on. This computer, in it's last configuration, was actually quite "snappy"... I attribute that to the 850 chipset utilizing rambus. I'd say 85% or better of what I did in my NLE was real time. All the standard Canopus stuff was real time, but I'm talking about layers of stuff still coming out with no rendering. If anything I'm hoping that the big processor upgrade and extra ram will surpass what I've been used to. Really it SHOULD, but the new system doesn't feel as snappy. Honestly I think that could also be the fault of XP. I was slow to dump win2Kpro 'cause I hate BLOAT.

Maybe "XP Lite" can cut some of the fat off this bee-otch.

To bring this story full circle, the Asus board has peanut butter and jelly on it right now... as it sits in the bottom of the trash can.

Kevin Shaw · November 1st, 2004, 11:42 PM

Rambus got its butt kicked in the marketplace because the company was way too greedy about pricing and licensing fees, and DDR memory easily matched the performance at a significantly lower price. If your new setup seems slower I'd definitely suspect Windows bloat or other factors rather than memory type changes.

Glenn Chan · November 1st, 2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Really it SHOULD, but the new system doesn't feel as snappy.

You can download TweakUI and make the menus open faster. Does that count? :D

Matt Gettemeier · November 2nd, 2004, 06:58 AM

I finally got it all sorted. This machine is moving along very nicely now.

Hey I can't help but defend rambus though... it took TWO YEARS for ddr to get as fast. That's forever in tech-terms. When I first got my 850 chipset I had 400mHz throughput... with no bottle-necks. The rambus was the fastest part of the machine with 800mHz throughput. It wasn't until a full year later that you could even get 333mHz on a ddr system. Even today it's just recently that you can get ddr that's faster then the 1066mHz throughput that you could get with rambus two years ago.

I say you gotta' give that company credit where credit is due... but also blame. You're right about the greed factor. Just like Apple. I don't know if it worked FOR Macintosh or against 'em... but I'd bet anything that if Mac had licensed their technology the way IBM did... we'd all be on Macs now and IBM would have gone the way of the dinosaur... or should I say Commodore 64.

Kevin Shaw · November 3rd, 2004, 10:45 PM

The way I remember it, Rambus never offered a significant practical advantage for most applications, and a review of historical articles on the topic reminds us that it had high bandwidth but also high latency. Just like clock speed for processors, simply increasing one technical factor doesn't guarantee better overall results...

http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814/index.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923/index.html

Regarding Apple, the story I've heard is that Intel asked them to port their OS to PC hardware back when Windows was a pathetic excuse for an operating system (even more so than now), but Steve Jobs felt it was better to go it alone. Twenty years later, Apple still survives through impressive creativity, but they've clearly missed their chance to be a major player.

Matt Gettemeier · November 4th, 2004, 08:12 AM

Those Rambus articles were from '98. Here's a quote from Tom's in '02.

"As we have pointed out in this article, progress will be made and perhaps it will be a strange combination of both new and old technology. Maybe we were too hard on Rambus from the beginning or perhaps we were not ready for the evolution that it offered us. Better yet it might be said that processor technology was not yet ready to fully exploit the potiential of Rambus. Or perhaps many of us were just confused about the fact that Rambus was a serial technology, rather than the parallel technology that we all have had more direct experience with.

At least for the time being, if you still have some of those PC800 RDRAM modules, you can certainly put them to good use with some of the current crop of 850 motherboards. This will result in a performance gain over the Intel DDR boards."

That was four years later and looking at the same pc800 sticks. What else in computer-tech has a relevant retail life of 4-5 years with no revisions?

Hey I'm on a ddr400 machine now... I JUST finished it and dumped my Rambus. So trust me, I'm not trying to say Rambus was anything more then it was... but if not for some questionable tactics to force their way into the market, and a few integration glitches, Rambus could have been something. For 2 years the problem wasn't the latency so much as nothing could utilize the bandwidth effectively.

I appreciate those links... you gotta' love Tom's! Thanks.

October 31st, 2004, 07:09 AM	#16
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	P.S. As an after thought, you said you replaced everything EXCEPT the MB and power supply? If it just goes off, it may be the power supply, even though I am willing to bet it is the Asus board. P.P.S. I really want to come over to your house for Peanut butter and jelly samiches! I like the way you think! __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

October 31st, 2004, 10:13 AM	#17
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	Keith, you should have been here last night. Really. I wanted to get out the dvx but I wasn't sure if it would push the insanity further or end it. Now that it's the next morning I wish I had. LOL... I hate using "LOL"... but THIS time, it fits... 'cause I am. Hey I DID replace the power supply. The new p/s didn't make a difference... so I went back to the old one. I got a standard ATX 420watt to test the p/s issue, and once the computer resorted to it's bad behavior I put my Enermax Silent 480 back in. (I didn't think it could have been the p/s considering I got the best one I could at the time... but I checked it anyway.) And I AM on a new mobo now. I decided to try an Intel 875. I doubt Intel has the outright performance of some other boards, but I'll always take a couple steps down for stability (after my Asus issues.) If I can get my current system sorted I'll be really happy with it. That said I'm surprised Rambus never caught on. This computer, in it's last configuration, was actually quite "snappy"... I attribute that to the 850 chipset utilizing rambus. I'd say 85% or better of what I did in my NLE was real time. All the standard Canopus stuff was real time, but I'm talking about layers of stuff still coming out with no rendering. If anything I'm hoping that the big processor upgrade and extra ram will surpass what I've been used to. Really it SHOULD, but the new system doesn't feel as snappy. Honestly I think that could also be the fault of XP. I was slow to dump win2Kpro 'cause I hate BLOAT. Maybe "XP Lite" can cut some of the fat off this bee-otch. To bring this story full circle, the Asus board has peanut butter and jelly on it right now... as it sits in the bottom of the trash can.

November 1st, 2004, 11:42 PM	#18
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Rambus got its butt kicked in the marketplace because the company was way too greedy about pricing and licensing fees, and DDR memory easily matched the performance at a significantly lower price. If your new setup seems slower I'd definitely suspect Windows bloat or other factors rather than memory type changes.

November 2nd, 2004, 06:58 AM	#20
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	I finally got it all sorted. This machine is moving along very nicely now. Hey I can't help but defend rambus though... it took TWO YEARS for ddr to get as fast. That's forever in tech-terms. When I first got my 850 chipset I had 400mHz throughput... with no bottle-necks. The rambus was the fastest part of the machine with 800mHz throughput. It wasn't until a full year later that you could even get 333mHz on a ddr system. Even today it's just recently that you can get ddr that's faster then the 1066mHz throughput that you could get with rambus two years ago. I say you gotta' give that company credit where credit is due... but also blame. You're right about the greed factor. Just like Apple. I don't know if it worked FOR Macintosh or against 'em... but I'd bet anything that if Mac had licensed their technology the way IBM did... we'd all be on Macs now and IBM would have gone the way of the dinosaur... or should I say Commodore 64.

November 3rd, 2004, 10:45 PM	#21
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	The way I remember it, Rambus never offered a significant practical advantage for most applications, and a review of historical articles on the topic reminds us that it had high bandwidth but also high latency. Just like clock speed for processors, simply increasing one technical factor doesn't guarantee better overall results... http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814/index.html http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923/index.html Regarding Apple, the story I've heard is that Intel asked them to port their OS to PC hardware back when Windows was a pathetic excuse for an operating system (even more so than now), but Steve Jobs felt it was better to go it alone. Twenty years later, Apple still survives through impressive creativity, but they've clearly missed their chance to be a major player.

November 4th, 2004, 08:12 AM	#22
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	Those Rambus articles were from '98. Here's a quote from Tom's in '02. "As we have pointed out in this article, progress will be made and perhaps it will be a strange combination of both new and old technology. Maybe we were too hard on Rambus from the beginning or perhaps we were not ready for the evolution that it offered us. Better yet it might be said that processor technology was not yet ready to fully exploit the potiential of Rambus. Or perhaps many of us were just confused about the fact that Rambus was a serial technology, rather than the parallel technology that we all have had more direct experience with. At least for the time being, if you still have some of those PC800 RDRAM modules, you can certainly put them to good use with some of the current crop of 850 motherboards. This will result in a performance gain over the Intel DDR boards." That was four years later and looking at the same pc800 sticks. What else in computer-tech has a relevant retail life of 4-5 years with no revisions? Hey I'm on a ddr400 machine now... I JUST finished it and dumped my Rambus. So trust me, I'm not trying to say Rambus was anything more then it was... but if not for some questionable tactics to force their way into the market, and a few integration glitches, Rambus could have been something. For 2 years the problem wasn't the latency so much as nothing could utilize the bandwidth effectively. I appreciate those links... you gotta' love Tom's! Thanks.