Carl, first of all, when I was talking about "narrower" channel, I was referring to the number of signals, not the width. Even counting ground wires, you'll still end up with fewer signals to route on an 820 motherboard than an SDRAM motherboard like 810e. OK, so each signal is wider, but you'll end up with fewer connections.
Second, you are comparing an RDRAM channel to a PC100 SDRAM channel. Obviously the latter will be simpler to construct. But ever wonder how much the width and signal count will increase once we move to DDR SDRAM, the real competitor to RDRAM?
Third, even the 820 chipset can reside on a 4-layer motherboard (if memory serves me correctly). Will anyone be able to put a DDR chipset on a 4-layer motherboard? I doubt it. Most likely, a 6-layer motherboard will be required for single-channel DDR. Guess what? Dual-channel RDRAM is already being implemented on a 6-layer motherboard (840 chipset).
And fifth, I can do addition, but I still have a tough time counting. ;-)
Tenchusatsu
EDIT: Before you think that I'm continuing to ignore your original post, know that I finally took the time to look at the documentation that you presented in detail. I think you just said in a round-a-bout way that RDRAM has wider traces and wider gaps, thus a wider channel (physically) than SDRAM. Plus, you make a huge leap in logic, from "RDRAM is physically wider than SDRAM" to "RDRAM is the worst technology ever to hit memory." |
