Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (67783)	8/5/1999 11:25:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575556

Dan, you bring up some very good points, except for this one: <It's latency where rambus lags, and it's latency that seems to have killed off the 300/600 rambus for computers (it's still a fine technology for video games).> Latency might be somewhat longer for the DRDRAM-600, but for DRDRAM-800, latency will be similar to any flavor of SDRAM. More importantly, at least from Rambus' point-of-view, is the efficiency of multiple memory accesses. DDR SDRAM can interleave accesses, but so can PC100 and PC133 SDRAM. And neither can interleave them as well as DRDRAM. <PC100 has less than half the bandwidth of DDR 133, yet still provides similar performance to 300/600 rambus. Rambus 400/800 ups the bandwidth by 33%, instead of the 260% increase gained by moving to DDR.> This isn't a fair statement. First of all, your percentage is wrong for DDR. It's not 260%, it's 166%. But even 166% is a misleading number. PC133 demonstrates almost no performance improvement over PC100, even though the bandwidth goes up by 33%. How will DDR SDRAM demonstrate a real significant performance improvement? Tenchusatsu