Combjelly, Re: "Additionally, you are missing the point that I have been trying to say for the last several posts."
Sorry, my mistake. You routinely challenge the assumptions of AMD supporters when they pull wild numbers out of the air, I had assumed it would be fair to do the same. I was wrong and you have my apologies...
Do you understand the point I was trying to make, yet? I'm not so sure. Go back and read the parts of my posts that begin, "the point is...."
Also just to clear things up, in January, Toshiba announced 18mb SRAM (2MB + ECC) for $80, and 9mb (1MB + ECC) for $35. Two of the 9mb (which is what Itanium would use for the 2MB version) would cost $70 (I guessed $60). These prices have probably fallen since then, too, just like the rest of the memory market.
chipcenter.com
Now before you call me on the speed of this memory, let me mention that this is NtRAM, which is a different architecture than other SRAMs (and slower than the 800MT/s DDR SRAM that I linked to from Samsung earlier), so I only represented it to offer a point of reference. I don't know if DDR SRAM costs more for the added speed, but technically, I can't think of anything innately about the design that would make it more expensive (also, DDR SRAM may be higher volume, like Samsung indicated, which would suggest lower prices). I'll try to find more, so that it doesn't look like I am pulling numbers out of thin air.
Moreover, I just wanted to mention that you were the one claiming huge SRAM costs for Intel. I was merely stating that you were probably overestimating, at which point I made an educated guess as to what the costs would be. The difference is that I make it known when I guess, unlike other AMD supporters that throw out numbers, and then pretend like they are facts.
wanna_bmw |
