"the R659 chipset drives four channels of 1200MHz RDRAM memory resulting in 9.6GByte/sec of memory bandwidth. This represents a 50% higher performance gain than competing dual-channel DDR chipsets." This also represents 50% more bandwidth than an 800MHz FSB. The upcoming 800MHz FSB from Intel will offer a 6.4GB/sec interface and this proposed memory interface is 9.6. Running PC-800 RDRAM in a 4 channel configuration is enough. I hope this is their intention. I guess they need to print something exciting, yet pointless, to get people to notice these days.

I should probably have mentioned the obvious in my previous post: DDR-400/PC-3200 in dual channel configuration happens to offer exactly enough bandwidth for the 800MHz FSB (6.4GB/s). So DDR-400 in dual config is equivalent to RDRAM PC-800 in a 4-way config. Suddenly the RDRAM advantage does not look so good.

Everything needs to grow to progress, no doubt, but all in good time. There is no use for a 4 channel RDRAM chipset supporting PC-1200 at the moment. If anything, I think DDR proved that even matching the FSB capacity does not always mean better performance. This was my main point in posting: It is not a good indicator when companies are posting huge numbers without any value. Smells like desperation, taking any number to make a selling point. This in a market that is more than ripe to change from ATA to SATA and from PCI to PCI-Express. These are gonna be the main movers. 1066 FSB is a long time off if Intel's track record are anything to go by. Don't forget that the latest push is not about MHz, but about HyperThreading and PNI. The need to scale frequency will be dependent on AMD's ability to compete. By the time 1066 FSB will figure into the equation, DDR-2 will be here to save the day. This is not a matter of preference, this was a decision by Intel when the decided to stop supporting Rambus technologies in their desktop and workstation units. Please keep in mind that while having too high multiplier numbers for the CPU's internal frequency is bad, so is having a low one. The processor simply cannot process on a 1:1 ratio.

Forgot to say this (my edit button fell off): The 1066 FSB should become interesting around 5.2GHz (CPU internal frequency) unless Intel has decided to change major factors such as multi-core.