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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (41052)	4/27/2000 2:24:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

In answer to a PM: Sure the pixel size changes with time, but the beauty of that ratio is that the ratio takes the change in pixel size into account. You have not read my posts carefully enough. The ratio holds regardless of how the memory is used to describe the image. If the image is a simple 80x24 text image, and it is described by a buffer that contains the ascii text only, then it is the case that the amount of memory required is very small, and so is the bandwidth. But the ratio is still around 1/120. If the image is a 4000x3000 screen described by exceedingly complex triangles, with 3-dimensional shading and nuances of depth, etc., etc., then the amount of memory required is large, and so is the bandwidth. Both numbers are many orders of magnitude larger, but the ratio is still around 1/120. Why am I having trouble explaining this simple fact to so many intelligent people? Is my writing so dense, or is the concept that complicated? You have a big memory, you are going to need a big bandwidth. You have a small memory, you are going to need a small bandwidth. Doesn't this make sense? This is such a simple and obvious thing. -- Carl