SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dan3 who wrote (83031)12/15/1999 4:40:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) of 1571028
 
Dan, <It may be that it will be changed. [EV7 and Rambus]>

Haven't you learned ANYTHING on the RMBS thread? The reason why the EV7 will use Rambus is because of the high bandwidth-per-pin. That allows the Alpha EV7 to integrate four RDRAM controllers onto a processor core. Changing that to DDR is going to cost dearly in pins. That might be fine if you're IBM and willing to use exotic packaging for ultra low-volume products. Maybe even for Compaq/Digital. But that's definitely not something that I would imagine Samsung would be fond of.

<but the EV7 chipset uses (as best as I can recall) 8 rambus channels, giving it the same data channel width as dual DDR channels.>

No, the EV7 will have four RDRAM channels per processor, so a 4-way system will have 16 RDRAM channels. And that will have roughly the same effective bandwidth as 16 DDR channels (not peak, but it's well-known that DDR is less efficient than RDRAM at using bandwidth).

<But the initial Itaniums will come out without Rambus for similar reasons (designed before Rambus), when for marketing reasons Intel might be better off if it were used, regardless of price/performance.>

No, Dan, in reality Rambus isn't necessary for 460GX (Itanium chipset). Neither is DDR. Neither is PC133 for that matter. And you are wrong, it's not an issue of marketing. If anything, it's just a PR issue.

Tenchusatsu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News