Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elmer who wrote (77635)	10/28/1999 9:11:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) of 1571808

Re: Really? Then Samsung needs you to set them straight... Elmer, Read their article carefully. They compare rambus 800/40 (rambus comes in latency binsplits as well as MHZ binspits). There are few 800/40's out there, but use that part anyway. The paper shows PC133 total latency at 75ns and Rambus at 70ns. But, instead of comparing best PC133 (CAS 2) with best Rambus, they compare the Rambus to CAS 3 PC133. If you use CAS 2, you save 7.5ns. So the PC133 fills the cache line 2.5ns faster than the Rambus 800/40. Now consider DDR 266, doubling the data rate cuts another 15ns off the time required to fill a cache line leaving total latency at 52.5ns for DDR266 and 70ns for rambus - a difference of 17.5ns. On the 64 byte cache line used by rambus and (I believe) Itaniam, rambus will do better against PCXXX but DDR will increase its lead to 110 - 82.5 or 27.5ns This low latency is particularly important for multitasking machines like servers. I think this is why the server manufacturers have pretty much en mass decided to go with DDR, and it looks like Intel will too. Regards, Dan

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next